State v. Hoffman
Supreme Court of Kansas
Appeal from. Chase District Court. Prosecution for grand larceny. Prom a conviction and sentence, the defendant, Hoffman, appeals. The opinion herein, filed July 6, 1894, states the material facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from. Chase District Court. Prosecution for grand larceny. Prom a conviction and sentence, the defendant, Hoffman, appeals. The opinion herein, filed July 6, 1894, states the material facts. Although the evidence was circumstantial, it was incumbent on the state to make good out of the evidence, first, that the cattle found at Stanberry, Mo., were Julius Panzram's cattle; and second, that these cattle were shipped in defendant Hoffman’s car, by him, with the intent to deprive the owner of them. These facts constituted the corpus delicti, and the state was required to prove them…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HoetON, C. J.:
The defendant was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to the penitentiary of the state for the term of two years and six months. He* appeals.
I. It is insisted that the information for grand larceny *705was defective; that, instead of charging the taking of four head of “neat cattle,” it should have charged the taking of four steers. In support of this, it is said that the term “neat” may mean “nice” or “clean.” We think the description in the indictment sufficiently specific. “Neat cattle,” in the statute describing the offense of grand…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. CassadySupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
- People v. WinklerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by11 opinions
- State ex rel. Godard v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1900
- State v. WhiteSupreme Court of Kansas · 1907
- State v. BrundigeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1923
- People v. HaackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- State v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1966
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.