Commonwealth v. Richards
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an indictment which came into this Court by an appeal from a judgment rendered in the municipal Court for the town of Boston. On the plea of not guilty, the defendant had been convicted by the verdict of- a jury in both the courts. The charge was for stealing from the person of A. B. “ one bank-note, of the value of ten dollars, of the goods and chattels of the said A. B.”
1Opinion of the Court
Thacher, J.,
said he thought the description was sufficient, and therefore that the judgment ought not to be arrested.
Sedgwick, J.
Three reasons are stated in the motion in arrest of judgment. The two last are reasons why the first should prevail. There is no doubt that the law requires a description according to the statute. It is not objected that the crime itself is not charged technically, nor that it is not the crime alleged' in the statute ; but the objection is that the subject of it is not sufficiently described. I think otherwise, and that the intention of the act was to make all…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Engleman v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1850
- Bulloch v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
- People v. KentMichigan Supreme Court · 1843
- State v. KingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1902
- Terry v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1859
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.