State v. Chunn
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Si. Louis Criminal Court. The indictment describes an offence within the meaning of the statute. The defendant is criminally liable for falsely pretending that he owned the slave when he did not. State v. JYewell, 1 Mo. 252. The fact that a warranty was given makes no difference. on the point that no indictable offence was charged, cited 2 Russ, on Crimes, 303. Arch. Or. PI. 277. Sexy. Codington, 1 C. & P. 661. 3 Arch. Or.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Si. Louis Criminal Court. The indictment describes an offence within the meaning of the statute. The defendant is criminally liable for falsely pretending that he owned the slave when he did not. State v. JYewell, 1 Mo. 252. The fact that a warranty was given makes no difference. on the point that no indictable offence was charged, cited 2 Russ, on Crimes, 303. Arch. Or. PI. 277. Sexy. Codington, 1 C. & P. 661. 3 Arch. Or. PI. by Waterman, 470-1, 473 (note.) PexY. Pyrrell, 1 Stark. N. P. C. 402. The indictment is insufficient in not charging that the defendant obtained the money…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
The defendant, Ohunn, was indicted at the May term, 1853, of the Criminal Court of St. Louis, for obtaining money from one Solomon P. ICetcham by false pretences.
The indictment charges the false pretence to be in the sale of a negro woman named Lucy, for $600, which it charges that defendant sold to said Solomon P. Ketcham, falsely pretending that he, the said defendant, was the owner of said negro woman, and that he had full right and authority to sell her. The indictment sets forth the bill of sale for said negro *234woman, executed by said defendant to said Ketcham,' in which said defendant…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. WatsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- State v. ButlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- State v. DinesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907