People v. Trim
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court of the City and County of San Francisco. The following is the instruction refused by the Court below, and commented on in the opinion : “Defendant in this case is charged with the burning, feloniously, of the house occupied by him and his wife. Ton must be satisfied, from the evidence, that the defendant burned the house himself.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the County Court of the City and County of San Francisco. The following is the instruction refused by the Court below, and commented on in the opinion : “Defendant in this case is charged with the burning, feloniously, of the house occupied by him and his wife. Ton must be satisfied, from the evidence, that the defendant burned the house himself. Proof that the defendant advised or encouraged the burning of the house, not being present at the time, would not warrant the conviction of the defendant under this indictment.” The other facts of the case are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSprague, J.
Appellant, William T. Trim and Mary F. Trim, as principals, were jointly indicted for the crime of arson, in the second degree, under the seventh section of the Act of April 16, 1856 (Stats. 1856, p. 132), which section reads as follows : “ Every person who shall wilfully burn, or cause to be *77burned, any building, ship, vessel, or other water craft, or any goods, wares, merchandise, or other chattel, which shall be at the time insured against loss or damage by fire, with intent to injure or defraud such insurer, whether the same be the property of such person or of any other, shall, upon…
2Cited by21 opinions
- People v. ZamoraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Taylor v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- People v. . BlivenNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- People v. RozelleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- People v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.