State v. Malim
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Storey County. The facts appear in the opinion. The demurrer ought to have been sustained. The indictment charges two distinct offenses. The statute is imperative that the indictment shall charge but one offense. (1 Comp. Laws, 1862; see, also, Id. 1858,1860; 1 Wharton C. L. 414, et seq.; The People v. Thompson, 28 Cal. 217: People v. Shotioell, 27 Id. 400.)
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Hawley, J.:
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of embezzlement.
The indictment contains two counts. Leaving out the heading and conclusion, the respective counts read as follows:
1. “Edward Malim is accused by the grand jury of the *289county of Storey, by this indictment, of the crime of embezzlement, committed as follows, to Avit: That the said Ed wal’d Malim, on or about the seventh day of July, A. D. 1877, and before the finding of this indictment at the county of Storey, state of Nevada, was employed and hired in the capacity of clerk to L. P. Drexler and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People v. McKinneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
- People v. ShotwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Engleman v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1850
- Mayo v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- State v. ChapmanNevada Supreme Court · 1871
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. BickfordNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- State v. GreenUtah Supreme Court · 1936