Enright v. People

New York Supreme Court

Enright v. People

21 How. Pr. 383

DecidedMay 15, 1861

StatusPublished

This text of 21 How. Pr. 383 (Enright v. People) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Enright v. People, 21 How. Pr. 383 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

By the court, Sutherland, Justice.

I assume that the prisoner was indicted under the act passed March 23,1860.

In my opinion, the indictment, in charging the offence, should have stated the port or place from which the ticket or instrument purported to entitle the person or persons to a passage or right of passage, as one.of the circumstances entering into the statutory definition of the offence.

I think, too, that there was a fatal variance between the ticket or instrument described in the indictment, and that produced and proved on the trial.

On these grounds I think the judgment of the oyer and terminer should be reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the court, Sutherland, Justice.

I assume that the prisoner was indicted under the act passed March 23,1860.

In my opinion, the indictment, in charging the offence, should have stated the port or place from which the ticket or instrument purported to entitle the person or persons to a passage or right of passage, as one.of the circumstances entering into the statutory definition of the offence.

I think, too, that there was a fatal variance between the ticket or instrument described in the indictment, and that produced and proved on the trial.

On these grounds I think the judgment of the oyer and terminer should be reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 How. Pr. 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enright-v-people-nysupct-1861.