Commonwealth v. M'Kisson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. THE record of this cause, returned on a writ of error to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lycoming county, shewed that an indictment was found by the grand jury against the défendants in error, containing two counts, the first of which set forth, that on or about the fust of June, 1821, Jacob Shoemaker, jun. purchased and obtained the possession of a heifer from Arthur M* Kisson s that some time in the month of July following, the heifer broke out and strayed from…
Read the full summary
In Error. THE record of this cause, returned on a writ of error to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lycoming county, shewed that an indictment was found by the grand jury against the défendants in error, containing two counts, the first of which set forth, that on or about the fust of June, 1821, Jacob Shoemaker, jun. purchased and obtained the possession of a heifer from Arthur M* Kisson s that some time in the month of July following, the heifer broke out and strayed from the enclosure of Shoemaker, and returned to the farm of Ml Kisson ; that M‘Kisson and William Rea, the other defendant,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson J. —
It is unnecessary to express an opinion on the first count of this indictment, as it is clear the second is good. The authorities relied on by the counsel for the *422défendants, relate to indictments for actual cheating; not ter conspiracies to cheat. But between these, there is a plain difference. Where the crime is consummated, there must have been overt acts, as well as the employment of false tokens ; and as these are essentially constituent parts of the offence, they must be set out; but in conspiracy, the confederating is the gist of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. CosnekSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Clary v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846
- Commonwealth v. CosnekSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003