Legal Opinion

Pitsnogle v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided June 20, 1895PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of the city of Roanoke, rendered January 15, 1893.

1Opinion of the Court

Keith, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

*809E. B. Pitsnogle was indicted in the Hustings Court of the city of Boanoke for the larceny of a gold watch of the value of §80, the property of Edmond Bolden. For this offence he was, at a subsequent term, tried before a jury, found guilty as indicted, and his punishment fixed at fifteen days in jail and a fine of $15.

The first assignment of error is that the court erred in overruling the demurrer of petitioner to the indictment. The indictment is in the usual form, and this objection cannot be sustained.

The second error assigned is that the court…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dowdy v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1852
  2. Anable v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1873
  3. Fay v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1877
  4. Dull v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1875
  5. Shinn v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1879

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. LewisWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Commonwealth v. BruhnSupreme Court of Virginia · 2002
  3. State v. . VincentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  4. State v. GoldstrohmWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Marshall v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1927

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API