Le Cointe v. United States
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hearing upon an appeal by the defendant from a judgment on verdict in a prosecution for the crime of larceny. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Shepard
The appellant, George Le Cointe, was duly indicted and has been tried and convicted of larceny of certain jewelry alleged to be the property of Dolly Ballard.
The first assignment of error is founded on the refusal of the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, on the ground that the ownership of the stolen property has been improperly laid • in the indictment. The testimony showed that the alleged owner, Dolly Ballard, was a married woman; but that she had been separated from her husband for about six years and had supported herself; that she had acquired the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Coffin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Hopt v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Starr v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Dunbar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Murray v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hummer v. LevinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- Monday v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1950
- Hummer v. LevinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- Hummer v. LevinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996