People v. Hall
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Court of Sessions of Monterey. The indictment runs : “ do accuse one R. E. Hall of the crime of altering and defacing the brand of a mare, not his own property, with the intent to steal the same ; said crime being a felony, committed as follows: “ The said R. F. Hall, of Monterey county aforesaid, on the first day of June, A. D. 1860, to wit: in the said Monterey county, the brand of one dark bay mare—said brand being as follows [brand]—of the goods and…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Sessions of Monterey. The indictment runs : “ do accuse one R. E. Hall of the crime of altering and defacing the brand of a mare, not his own property, with the intent to steal the same ; said crime being a felony, committed as follows: “ The said R. F. Hall, of Monterey county aforesaid, on the first day of June, A. D. 1860, to wit: in the said Monterey county, the brand of one dark bay mare—said brand being as follows [brand]—of the goods and chattels belonging to the estate of Firmina Espinosa, deceased, and in the especial care, custody and keeping of one Jo ,…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Field, C. J. concurring.
This was a case for altering the brand of a horse with intent to steal it.
*426The indictment charges the property as that of an estate. This is insufficient. The charge should be of altering the brand of the animal as that of a particular individual, or that the owner of the animal was unknown.
For this error the judgment must be reversed and cause remanded.
2Cited by8 opinions
- People v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- People v. PratherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- State v. RathboneIdaho Supreme Court · 1901
- State v. HammonsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Hendee v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.