People v. Watson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a.judgment of the Superior Court of'the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
The defendant was convicted of grand larceny of a purse. The information charges larceny from the person of one Lizzie Golden, and that the property taken was the personal property of Lizzie Golden.
On the trial, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that if they find the said Lizzie Golden at the time of the larceny was a married woman, and that the purse was bought with the money of her husband, they should acquit the defendant. The court not only refused the instruction, but gave instructions of an exactly opposite effect.
Section 956, Penal Code, seems to settle this appeal:—
“…
2Cited by7 opinions
- People v. FosterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- People v. NunleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- State v. RathboneIdaho Supreme Court · 1901
- Lucas v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1918
- People v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.