People v. Van Blarcum
2 Johns. 105
Opinion
If one be indicted for burning the dioelL ing-house of another, it is sufficient, if it be, in fact, the
[105]*105dwelling-house of such person.' The court will not inquire into the tenure
Motion denied.
Occupation of the dwelling house seems.suflicient; probably upon the same reason that possession of stolen goods before-the felony is sufficient to lay them in the indictment, as the property of the person from whose possession they were stoloD, and no enquiry can bo made into the title of the possessor of such goods. ’ -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Van Blarcum, 2 Johns. 105 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).
2 Johns. 105 (People v. Van Blarcum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Robbins v. Bangor Railway & Electric Co.
62 A. 136 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1905)
Hannigan v. State
131 Ala. 29 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1901)
Tuller v. State
8 Tex. Ct. App. 501 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1880)
Davis v. State
52 Ala. 357 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1875)
Snyder v. People
26 Mich. 106 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1872)
State v. Toole
29 Conn. 342 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1860)
State v. Wentworth
37 N.H. 196 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1858)