People v. McFlynn

California Supreme Court

People v. McFlynn

1 Cal. Unrep. 234

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 7, 1865

DocketNo. 682

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 234 (People v. McFlynn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California 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. McFlynn, 1 Cal. Unrep. 234 (Cal. 1865).

Pincite

Opinion

SAWYER, J.-

The indictment is sufficient: People v. Sanksley, and cases cited. We find no error in the charge of the court, or instructions given at request of counsel. The act of 1863 (Laws 1863, p. 771) authorizing the wife to be a witness for or against the husband is an amendment to section 395 of the Civil Practice Act, and relates only to civil cases.

We think, however, that the,evidence is insufficient to show that the branding of the cattle was done with intent to steal, and for this reason the judgment must be reversed and a new trial had, a«d it is so ordered.

We concur: Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.; Sanderson, C. J.

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

SAWYER, J.-

The indictment is sufficient: People v. Sanksley, and cases cited. We find no error in the charge of the court, or instructions given at request of counsel. The act of 1863 (Laws 1863, p. 771) authorizing the wife to be a witness for or against the husband is an amendment to section 395 of the Civil Practice Act, and relates only to civil cases.

We think, however, that the,evidence is insufficient to show that the branding of the cattle was done with intent to steal, and for this reason the judgment must be reversed and a new trial had, a«d it is so ordered.

We concur: Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.; Sanderson, C. J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcflynn-cal-1865.