People v. Thomas

New York Supreme Court

People v. Thomas

3 Hill & Den. 169

DecidedJuly 15, 1842

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Hill & Den. 169 (People v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 3 Hill & Den. 169 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1842).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Non constat from the indictment, that Jones sustained any damage by the false representation; nor that there was an intent on the part of Thomas, at the timg of the representation, to work any damage. The note wasduejand payment made. This w^^^jinhy^cpps^equence—a thing which Jones was bound to do. A false representation, by which a man may be cheateiPTnto his duty, is not within the statute. It was said in argument that the subsequent negotiation of the note by Thorpas obviated the difficulties adverted to. The note being ovser due when the latter fact took place, it is difficult to see judicially, that Jones would be injured by it. Whether he would or would not, is merely speculative, depending on his precaution in providing himself with proper evidence. It is enough, however, to say that the indictment does [171]*171not charge the subsequent act of negotiation as entering into the defendant’s design when he made the representation - nor is the act itself even mentioned.

New trial ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

Non constat from the indictment, that Jones sustained any damage by the false representation; nor that there was an intent on the part of Thomas, at the timg of the representation, to work any damage. The note wasduejand payment made. This w^^^jinhy^cpps^equence—a thing which Jones was bound to do. A false representation, by which a man may be cheateiPTnto his duty, is not within the statute. It was said in argument that the subsequent negotiation of the note by Thorpas obviated the difficulties adverted to. The note being ovser due when the latter fact took place, it is difficult to see judicially, that Jones would be injured by it. Whether he would or would not, is merely speculative, depending on his precaution in providing himself with proper evidence. It is enough, however, to say that the indictment does [171]*171not charge the subsequent act of negotiation as entering into the defendant’s design when he made the representation - nor is the act itself even mentioned.

New trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Hill & Den. 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thomas-nysupct-1842.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack