People v. Walbridge
New York Supreme Court
At the Rensselaer oyer and terminer, in November, 1824, an indictment was found against the defendant; the first count of which charged, that on the 20th day of April, 1824, he did buy a certain promissory note of, and from one the holder and proprietor of the note, which was made and signed by one W. M and dated April 14⅛. . , T . r 1824; by which note Jr. M. promised to pay one A. V. the sum of $125,50, at the bank of Lansingburgh, in 90 days from the date; that the note…
Read the full summary
At the Rensselaer oyer and terminer, in November, 1824, an indictment was found against the defendant; the first count of which charged, that on the 20th day of April, 1824, he did buy a certain promissory note of, and from one the holder and proprietor of the note, which was made and signed by one W. M and dated April 14⅛. . , T . r 1824; by which note Jr. M. promised to pay one A. V. the sum of $125,50, at the bank of Lansingburgh, in 90 days from the date; that the note was endorsed by A. U A., whereby it became and was the property of J. B. S. till the purchase by the defendant, for a…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
held the indictment to be good both in form and substance. They said, the intent with which an attorney or counsellor buys a note, need not be alleged in the indictment; nor need it be averred that a prosecution has been commenced on it. The act ofbuying constitutes *517the offence ;(c) and on this being shown, it lies with the defendant to make out that he is within the proviso of the statute. The date, amount, time when due, &c. with other circumstances going to the question of intent, are, therefore, immaterial. We think the legislature intended to forbid the pu chase of notes, &c. by…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Moses v. . McDivittNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Goldman v. KennedyNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- Mann v. FairchildNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- People v. AuerbachNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1931