People v. Arlington
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from orders denying a new trial and denying a motion in arrest of judgment. William T. Wallace, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.
Defendant has been convicted of making and uttering a fictitious order for the payment of money. Objection is now made for the first time to the sufficiency of the allegations of the indictment. ' The pleading appears to have been drawn with great care, and we find no substantial objection to it. The indictment charges the order to have been uttered to Charles Johnson with intent to defraud the United Carriage Company. It is now claimed that there should be some showing by the pleading that Johnson was in some way connected with this carriage company. We see no reason why such a showing could…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People v. Chin Mook SowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- People v. MeyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- People v. DenbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by17 opinions
- People v. FlemingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Stickel v. San Diego Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1948
- People v. CanfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- People v. AdamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- People v. FrankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.