State v. Lull
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Howard, J., presiding. Indictment. The defendant was accused of breaking and entering a store and stealing certain goods therefrom in the night time. Evidence was introduced, tending to show that certain goods produced in a trunk in Court were a portion of those taken from the store; that they were at some time in the possession of the defendant, and that the trunk was his.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Howard, J., presiding. Indictment. The defendant was accused of breaking and entering a store and stealing certain goods therefrom in the night time. Evidence was introduced, tending to show that certain goods produced in a trunk in Court were a portion of those taken from the store; that they were at some time in the possession of the defendant, and that the trunk was his. The owner of the goods stolen was called as a witness, and the attorney for the State offered to exhibit the goods to him, and to ask him whether they were taken from the store at the time…
1Opinion of the CourtCutting, J.
— First. —- It is contended, that the witness, the owner of .the goods alleged to have been stolen, should first have stated what kind of goods were taken, or given some description tending to identify the same, before the goods were exhibited to him. This proposition assumes, that every merchant or trader must necessarily know, and be able to state from memory, the amount and description of every article kept in his store, and in default thereof, to be the proper victim Of plunder and robbery. We think that few merchants would subscribe to such a doctriue, or if they did so, that the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Albany Phosphate Co. v. Hugger Bros.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- National Syrup Co. v. CarlsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1891
- Welch Company v. GreeneSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1902
- Bundy v. HydeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870