King v. State
Tennessee Supreme Court
EROM HAYWOOD. Circuit Court, May Term, 1870. Before ¥h. P. BOND, J. insisted that the indictment was defective for want of a specific statement of a time when the offense was committed, citing 1 Wharton’s Cr. Law, sec. 262; Bolton v. State, 5 Cold., 651. cited the Code, 5124, and insisted that the first clause of that section dispensed with the allegation.
Read the full summary
EROM HAYWOOD. Circuit Court, May Term, 1870. Before ¥h. P. BOND, J. insisted that the indictment was defective for want of a specific statement of a time when the offense was committed, citing 1 Wharton’s Cr. Law, sec. 262; Bolton v. State, 5 Cold., 651. cited the Code, 5124, and insisted that the first clause of that section dispensed with the allegation. “The time at which the offense was committed need not be stated in the indictment,” and that the remainder of the sentence, was only to allow a more general statement, where time was alleged, than would be good at common law. If it had not…
1Opinion of the CourtDeaderick, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted, by a jury, in the Circuit Court of Haywood county, of larceny, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of five years, and judgment was pronounced accordingly.
The only error insisted upon is, that the court below should have quashed the indictment upon the motion of defendant, or have arrested the judgment.
The objection taken is, that no time is specified in the indictment, at which the offense was committed. The only allegation of the time of the commission of the offense is, “on the - day of-, 1870.”
"We do not consider this a sufficient allegation…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. ShawTennessee Supreme Court · 1904
- Chairs v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1911
- State of Tenn. v. CornellisonTennessee Supreme Court · 1933