People v. Stanford
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The information alleged that the property stolen was “a certain hog, said hog being then and there the property and chattel of one Albert Long.” It was contended by defendant that the indictment should have stated the color, kind, name, weight, mark, or. brand, or some kind of description by which the property could be identified.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The information alleged that the property stolen was “a certain hog, said hog being then and there the property and chattel of one Albert Long.” It was contended by defendant that the indictment should have stated the color, kind, name, weight, mark, or. brand, or some kind of description by which the property could be identified. The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.
Justice demands a new trial of this case. The defendant was charged by information with the larceny of a certain hog. That the hog was in defendant’s possession was not denied by him, and the cases, hows that the main controversy on the trial was whether his possession was criminal, or whether it was an innocent possession maintained under an honest belief of ownership in himself. For the purpose of showing that the former was the case the prosecution introduced ■ testimony tending to show that former ear marks of the hog had been changed and were then of a certain description. The purpose of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Oberlander v. Fixen & Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
- People v. WarrenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- State v. CollettIdaho Supreme Court · 1904
- People v. MachadoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900