Commonwealth v. Brettun
This text of 100 Mass. 206 (Commonwealth v. Brettun) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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 same as in other similar cases. If, for example, one is indicted for stealing a sheep belonging to a flock, it is not necessary to make the description more particular than this. An indictment is also good which alleges a larceny of a piece of paper, alleging its value, without any further description. See cases cited for the Commonwealth.
^Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
100 Mass. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-brettun-mass-1868.