People v. Smallman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Municipal Criminal Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Blake, J. The material parts of the charge of the Court below (referred to in the opinion) were as follows: As a general rule, where there is consent there is no larceny, but to this rule there are exceptions.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Municipal Criminal Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Blake, J. The material parts of the charge of the Court below (referred to in the opinion) were as follows: As a general rule, where there is consent there is no larceny, but to this rule there are exceptions. If a person obtains money from the owner by fraud, by undertaking and promising to do with it what he does not intend to do with it, and what he docs not in fact do with it, after he has got it into his possession; and if, at the time…
1Opinion of the Court
Thornton, J.:
The defendants were indicted by the Grand Jury of the City and County of San Francisco for* the crime of grand larceny. They were charged in the indictment with feloniously stealing, taking, and carrying away, contrary to the form, etc., 100 pieces of the current gold coin of the United States of the denomination of double eagles, or $20 pieces, and of the value of $20 each, said money being the property of William Cooper and Margery Wells Cooper. The defendants pleaded not guilty to the indictment, and on the trial the jury found them guilty as charged. They then moved an arrest…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Great Western Power Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- State v. McGaheyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
- People v. CoreyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- Pueblo v. SuttonSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1911
- People v. SlaughterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.