Legal Opinion

State v. Barnett

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1887PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from Multomah County. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. The indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime. 2. The testimony shows no bailment. (Bishop on Statutory Crimes, § 423.) 3. The court had no jurisdiction to try the case. 4. The property, if stolen, was stolen without the State. 5. It is presumed the common law is in force in British Columbia. 6. Bank-notes not larceny at common law. (Whartoffis Com.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Multomah County. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. The indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime. 2. The testimony shows no bailment. (Bishop on Statutory Crimes, § 423.) 3. The court had no jurisdiction to try the case. 4. The property, if stolen, was stolen without the State. 5. It is presumed the common law is in force in British Columbia. 6. Bank-notes not larceny at common law. (Whartoffis Com. Law, § 1758.) 7. There is no larceny by bailee at common law. 1. The offense of larceny accompanies the stolen property. (State v. Johnson, 2 Or. 15; 1…

1Opinion of the CourtLord, C. J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of larceny by bailee. On the trial of the cause, it appeared in evidence that the money alleged to have been converted by the defendant to his own use was delivered to him by a witness of the name of De Wolf, for safe-keeping, and to facilitate its transportation somewhere in British Columbia. That the money was brought by the defendant in person into Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon, and there placed by him with the Wells-Fargo Express Company for shipment to the bank of British Columbia, in the city of Portland, Multnomah…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. AdamsNew York Supreme Court · 1846
  2. Town of Barkhamsted v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1819

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. MillsOregon Supreme Court · 2013
  2. O'MALLEY v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
  3. People v. KellerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  4. State v. McMillanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  5. State v. WerdellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005

4 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