People v. Clark

New York Supreme Court

People v. Clark

4 Cow. 95

DecidedFebruary 15, 1825

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Cow. 95 (People v. Clark) 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

People v. Clark, 4 Cow. 95 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1825).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia.

We see no reason why' the parties should not proceed according to the general rules and practice of the Court as to pleading, amending, <fcc. We are referred to no case which is against this. The Attorney General entered a common rule to join in demurrer, and we "think rightly ; and that the defendant was right in entering his common rule to amend. The Attorney General may take the rule which he asks, and proceed against the defendant upon an amended information. The defendant may plead to this de novo.

Rule accordingly.

Note. The Attorney General mentioned to the Court the case of The King v. Glemmon, in 2 Rolle’s Rep. 41, where it was held that the defendant could not change his plea without the consent of the King’s attorney, if a term had [97]*97arrived since the plea was put in; though the King had altered the pleadings on his part; But,

The Court said they never should hold a defendant to all the strictness of that case.

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

Curia.

We see no reason why' the parties should not proceed according to the general rules and practice of the Court as to pleading, amending, <fcc. We are referred to no case which is against this. The Attorney General entered a common rule to join in demurrer, and we "think rightly ; and that the defendant was right in entering his common rule to amend. The Attorney General may take the rule which he asks, and proceed against the defendant upon an amended information. The defendant may plead to this de novo.

Rule accordingly.

Note. The Attorney General mentioned to the Court the case of The King v. Glemmon, in 2 Rolle’s Rep. 41, where it was held that the defendant could not change his plea without the consent of the King’s attorney, if a term had [97]*97arrived since the plea was put in; though the King had altered the pleadings on his part; But,

The Court said they never should hold a defendant to all the strictness of that case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Cow. 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clark-nysupct-1825.