People v. Holbrook
New York Supreme Court
THE defendant was indicted, at-the general sessions of the Peace °f Oneida county, for stealing bank notes.' The in-, dictment stated, “ for that, (the defendant,}, with force and arms, ab & Other larcenies of bank notes were also charged, in another count in the indictment, which it is unnecessary to state. The defendant was tried, and convicted, on the indictment.
Read the full summary
THE defendant was indicted, at-the general sessions of the Peace °f Oneida county, for stealing bank notes.' The in-, dictment stated, “ for that, (the defendant,}, with force and arms, ab & Other larcenies of bank notes were also charged, in another count in the indictment, which it is unnecessary to state. The defendant was tried, and convicted, on the indictment. AÍ bill of exceptions was taken, at the trial, to the opinion of the; court, overruling an objection to, and admitting, parol evidence of the contents of the notes, without producing the notes, or accounting for their…
1Per curiam
We are of opinion, that parol evidence of the .contents and amount of the notes, charged to have been stolen, was properly received, without accounting for their non-.production. It'has been repeatedly decided in the courts of Common pleas, and king’s bench, in England, that, in an action of trover for bond and notes, no notice to produce the thing sought to be recovered was necessary.. (1 Camp. N. P. Cas. 143. 3 B. & P. 143.). Lord Ellenborough, in How v. Hall, (14 East, 274.,) put the decision on this strong and irrefragable ground,that where the form of the action gives the defendant…
2Cited by20 opinions
- State v. BartlettSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1867
- McGinnis v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
- Jones v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1875
- State v. TrippSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- State v. HinckleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.