People v. Hall
19 Cal. 425
Opinion
Field, C. J. concurring.
This was a case for altering the brand of a horse with intent to steal it.
[426] The indictment charges the property as that of an estate. This is insufficient. The charge should be of altering the brand of the animal as that of a particular individual, or that the owner of the animal was unknown.
For this error the judgment must be reversed and cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Hall, 19 Cal. 425 (Cal. 1861).
19 Cal. 425 (People v. Hall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Logan
109 A. 593 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1920)
State v. Cutlip
88 S.E. 829 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1916)
State v. Hammons
126 S.W. 422 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1910)
Territory of New Mexico v. Valles
15 N.M. 228 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1909)
Hendee v. State
113 N.W. 1050 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1907)
State v. Rathbone
67 P. 186 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1901)
People v. Prather
53 P. 259 (California Supreme Court, 1898)
People v. Smith
44 P. 663 (California Supreme Court, 1896)