People v. Moore

65 How. Pr. 177
CourtCourt Of Oyer And Terminer New York
DecidedOctober 15, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 65 How. Pr. 177 (People v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court Of Oyer And Terminer New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Moore, 65 How. Pr. 177 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1882).

Opinion

Present — Hon. Albert Haight, Justice Supreme Court.

The grand jury, at a previous term of this court, having • found a bill of indictment against the defendant for the crime of murder, and the defendant having moved, on the affidavits of W. Henry Davis, George Moore and Carrie Moore, and the admissions of the district attorney as to the testimony given before the grand jury, and that the defendant and Carrie Moore were husband and wife at the time of the finding of the bill of indictment herein against defendant, and that the said Carrie Moore was sworn and gave material testimony before the grand jury.

Now, after reading said affidavits and the testimony given before the grand jury, by which-it appears that Carrie Moore,, the wife of the said defendant, was sworn as a witness in behalf of the people against her said husband, before said grand jury, on the investigation of the charges against the defendant, whereon the indictment was found, and that said Carrie Moore, among other things, testified on such hearing before said grand jury, that said defendant, from time to time, between the 16th day of November, 1878, and the 8th day of December, 1878, whipped, misused and maltreated Emma Boberts, in a cruel and inhuman manner, and the [187]*187question before said grand jury being whether or not the said defendant killed said Emma Roberts by said whipping, misuse and maltreatment, arid the said indictment having been in part based and founded upon such incompetent evidence, and after hearing W. Henry Davis, of counsel for the defendant, and Mr. Ashley, district attorney of Niagara county, in opposition thereto, it is

Ordered and adjudged that said indictment be and the same hereby is quashed or set aside, and the prisoner remanded to await the action of another grand jury.

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

Related

State v. Marshall
168 N.W. 174 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1918)
People v. . Glen
66 N.E. 112 (New York Court of Appeals, 1903)
In re Gardiner
14 N.Y. Crim. 519 (New York Court of General Session of the Peace, 1900)
People v. Brickner
15 N.Y.S. 528 (Court Of Oyer And Terminer New York, 1891)
Territory of Montana v. Pendry
9 Mont. 67 (Montana Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 How. Pr. 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moore-nyoytermct-1882.