State v. Dresser
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ON Exceptions. Indictment fob Larceny. Defendant seasonably filed a plea in abatement, alleging that his name was David D. Dresser, and not David Dresser, and that be has never been called or known as well by the. latter as by the former. To this plea, the attorney for the State replied, that the defendant was known as well by the one name as the other. Thereupon the issue was submitted- to the jury.
Read the full summary
ON Exceptions. Indictment fob Larceny. Defendant seasonably filed a plea in abatement, alleging that his name was David D. Dresser, and not David Dresser, and that be has never been called or known as well by the. latter as by the former. To this plea, the attorney for the State replied, that the defendant was known as well by the one name as the other. Thereupon the issue was submitted- to the jury. It appeared in evidence that, until recently, the defendant had resided in Stetson, — that his father and brothers lived there. There was also testimony on both sides as to the name he was known…
1Opinion of the CourtCutting-, J.
The defendant was indicted for the larceny of certain personal property, and pleaded misnomer in abatement. Issue was joined on the replication that he was known as well by the name of David Dresser as David D. Dresser, and the jury so found. It appeared in evidence, that the defendant, until a short time prior to the trial, resided in the town of Stetson, where also resided his father and mother.
The presiding Judge, after stating to the jury that the question for them to decide was whether the defendant was known as well by the one name as the other, gave them the following illustration,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Dow v. StateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1971
- Hutchins v. LibbySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1953
- State v. AppletonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
- State v. McNallySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1950
- State v. JalbertSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1965