State v. Hockenberry
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from General Term Eighth Judicial District. The appellant was indicted in the district court of Johnson county for the larceny of “ $180 in bank notes, usually known and described, as greenbacks,”. To this indictment he filed a demurrer, specifying the following grounds-: “ 1. Because it charges an'impossible offense in this — ‘ a bank note is not a greenback.’ ” “ 2. It is contradictory— a greenback is not a bank note.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from General Term Eighth Judicial District. The appellant was indicted in the district court of Johnson county for the larceny of “ $180 in bank notes, usually known and described, as greenbacks,”. To this indictment he filed a demurrer, specifying the following grounds-: “ 1. Because it charges an'impossible offense in this — ‘ a bank note is not a greenback.’ ” “ 2. It is contradictory— a greenback is not a bank note.” “ 3. The indictment is uncertain as to the subject-matter in reference to the crime' charged to have been committed.” The demurrer was overruled and the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtMiller, J.
The first error assigned raises the question of the sufficiency of the indictment, wherein it charges the defendant, with the larceny of “ $180 in bank notes, usually known and described as greenbacks.” Without doubt, it was practicable to have described the property stolen with *498more clearness and exactness. But we are of opinion that the language is such as to “ enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.” It may be true that, in exactness of speech, a bank note is not a greenback, or rather that what are commonly known and described as greenbacks are not strictly bank…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
- State v. FisherSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893