Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Brettun

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1868PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Indictment for larceny of “ one promissory note of the value of three hundred dollars, and one piece of paper of the value of three hundred dollars, of the goods and chattels of James H. Anthony.” In the superior court, before the jury were impanelled, the defendant filed a> motion to quash the indictment for the reason that no sufficient description was given of the promissory note, nor any description of the piece of paper, but Brig* ham, J., overruled the motion.

Read the full summary

Indictment for larceny of “ one promissory note of the value of three hundred dollars, and one piece of paper of the value of three hundred dollars, of the goods and chattels of James H. Anthony.” In the superior court, before the jury were impanelled, the defendant filed a> motion to quash the indictment for the reason that no sufficient description was given of the promissory note, nor any description of the piece of paper, but Brig* ham, J., overruled the motion. At the trial, it was admitted that the promissory note and the piece of paper were the same ; and Anthony, being called as a…

1Opinion of the Court

Chapman, C. J-

Promissory notes are made the subject of larceny, by the Gen. Sts. c. 161, § 18. Therefore they may be described in the same manner as other things which have an intrinsic value; that is, by any description applicable to them as a chattel. The King v. Johnson, 3 M. & S. 547. On the authority of this case, it is not necessary to add to the description the words “ for the payment of money.” It is objected, that, if so general a description is held to be sufficient, the defendant has no adequate protection against a second indictment for the same offence. But the protection is the…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CoeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
  2. Commonwealth v. CabotMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
  3. State v. McCoyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Anderson v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1921
  5. State v. CarterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API