State v. Appleby
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On motion to quash an indictment.
1Opinion of the Court
*527The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dixon, J.
The substantial question in this case is whether the indictment which charges the defendant with obtaining by false pretences “a large amount of dry and fancy goods of the value of twenty-seven hundred dollars,” describes the property obtained with sufficient certainty.
In Hagerman v. State, 25 Vroom 104, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Reed, declared that as a general rule the same certainty of description is required in an indictment for obtaining goods by false pretences as in an indictment for larceny. The leading objects of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cunningham v. StateSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1898
- Hagerman v. StateSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- Winnick v. ReillySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
- State v. LamoreauxNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951