People v. Shaw
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Eaton. (Hooker, J.) Larceny. Respondents bring error. Where one parts with his property voluntarily consenting thereto, it cannot be larceny, however fraudulent the means by which it was obtained: Ross v. People 5 Hill 294; 2 East P. C. 668; 1 Whart. Or. L. § 888; 2 Arch. Or.
Read the full summary
Error to Eaton. (Hooker, J.) Larceny. Respondents bring error. Where one parts with his property voluntarily consenting thereto, it cannot be larceny, however fraudulent the means by which it was obtained: Ross v. People 5 Hill 294; 2 East P. C. 668; 1 Whart. Or. L. § 888; 2 Arch. Or. PI. 371-2; if the money was loaned, no matter 'how false the means by which it was effected, it is not larceny; Hildebrand v. People 56 N. Y. 396; in such a case there can be no trespass, and there can be no larceny without trespass: People v. McDonald 43 N. Y. 61; People v. Mall 1 Den. 123; 2 Bish. Or. L. §…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
Respondents were convicted of larceny from James Brown of $80 in money, which was accomplished by means of legerdemain with marked cards. The only substantial question before us, worth noticing, is whether the fraudulent transaction, whereby the victim was deprived of his money, came within the definition of that offense. Although he was taken in while trying to aid in performing a sharp trick himself, yet this may not destroy the public wrong if one existed.
Shaw and Jones were confederates in the fraud. .Shaw had introduced himself to Brown as a traveler for a tea-dealing firm in Cincinnati,…
2Cited by33 opinions
- People v. EdwardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Crum v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- State v. RyanOregon Supreme Court · 1905
- Stewart v. WrightCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- State v. MellenbergerOregon Supreme Court · 1939
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.