State v. Jones
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indictment. The offence was charged in the indictment that the respondent “ on the 2d day of December, 1857, with force and arms at Hydepark, aforesaid, willfully and maliciously did cut, injure and destroy certain leaden pipe, used as an aqueduct for the conveyance of water, being the property of one Harvey Jewett then and there being found, contrary to the form, force and effect of the statute, etc., etc.”
Read the full summary
Indictment. The offence was charged in the indictment that the respondent “ on the 2d day of December, 1857, with force and arms at Hydepark, aforesaid, willfully and maliciously did cut, injure and destroy certain leaden pipe, used as an aqueduct for the conveyance of water, being the property of one Harvey Jewett then and there being found, contrary to the form, force and effect of the statute, etc., etc.” The respondent demurred to the indictment, but the county court, at the December Term, 1859, in Lamoille county, — Aldis, J., presiding, overruled the demurrer, and held the indictment…
1Opinion of the CourtPierpoint, J.
The question in this case arises on demurrer to the indictment.
We think there can be no doubt as to the true construction of the statute creating the offence, attempted to be charged in the indictment.
The legislature evidently intended to provide for the punishment of all persons that should be found guilty of destroying, or injuring, the pipe of an aqueduct. The language of the statute is that any person who shall “ cut, injure or destroy any leaden or other pipe used as an aqueduct, for the conveyance of water,” etc. We think there can be no question that to constitute the offence, the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- State v. StewartSupreme Court of Vermont · 1887
- State v. HodgsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
- State v. PaigeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906
- State v. CookSupreme Court of Vermont · 1866
- State v. HigginsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.