James v. United States

Eighth Circuit

James v. United States

170 F. 942, 96 C.C.A. 152, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4774

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 1909

DocketNo. 2,778

StatusPublished

This text of 170 F. 942 (James v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James v. United States, 170 F. 942, 96 C.C.A. 152, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4774 (8th Cir. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Charley James, who is plaintiff in error, was indicted in the United States Court in the Indian Territory, Central District, for stealing a horse. The indictment charged that the horse was owned by one S. K. Canady. The proof showed that it was owned by one S. K. Kennedy. The only assignment of error pressed upon us, is that such proof disclosed a fatal variance from the allegation. To this we cannot give our assent. The names “S. K. [943]*943Canady” and “S. K. Kennedy” sound so much alike when spoken colloquially as to be distinguishable only by the keenest attention. The rule idem sonans applies, '¡'here being no claim that any one by the name of “Canady,” as distinguished from “Kennedy,” owned the stolen horse, the defendant was not misled by the misspelling.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals in the Indian Territory, affirming the judgment of comiction, is accordingly affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Charley James, who is plaintiff in error, was indicted in the United States Court in the Indian Territory, Central District, for stealing a horse. The indictment charged that the horse was owned by one S. K. Canady. The proof showed that it was owned by one S. K. Kennedy. The only assignment of error pressed upon us, is that such proof disclosed a fatal variance from the allegation. To this we cannot give our assent. The names “S. K. [943]*943Canady” and “S. K. Kennedy” sound so much alike when spoken colloquially as to be distinguishable only by the keenest attention. The rule idem sonans applies, '¡'here being no claim that any one by the name of “Canady,” as distinguished from “Kennedy,” owned the stolen horse, the defendant was not misled by the misspelling.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals in the Indian Territory, affirming the judgment of comiction, is accordingly affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 F. 942, 96 C.C.A. 152, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-united-states-ca8-1909.