State v. Murphy
Supreme Court of Alabama
On points referred by the^ Circuit Court of Mobile. The indictment charges that the defendant on the seventeenth of February, 1844, at, &c.
Read the full summary
On points referred by the^ Circuit Court of Mobile. The indictment charges that the defendant on the seventeenth of February, 1844, at, &c. “sundry pieces of silver coin, made current by law, usage and custom, within the State of Alabama, amounting together to the sum of five hundred and thirty dollars and fifteen cents, and of the value of five hundred and thirty dollars and fifteen cents, of the monies, goods and chattels of Thomas A. Morgan, before then feloniously stolen, taken and earned away, then and there feloniously did receive and conceal, knowing the same to have been feloniously…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
1. Archbold, in his work upon criminal pleading, furnishes the form of an indictment against the receiver of stolen goods, as a substantive felony in which no allusion is made to the principal felon, either by mentioning his name or alleging that it was unknown to the grand jury [page 233.] In Rex v. Jervis, [6 C. & P. Rep.] it is said not to be necessary to *849state by whom the larceny was committed; and if averred, it is not necessary to state that he has been convicted. [See also, Rex v. Baxter, 5 T. Rep. 83.]
In The People v. Caswell, [21 Wend. Rep. 80,] the defendant was charged with having…
2Cited by33 opinions
- Grant v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- Grattan v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Mose v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
- McCauley v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- Milam v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.