State v. Baron

5 A. 718, 64 N.H. 612
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedJune 5, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 A. 718 (State v. Baron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Baron, 5 A. 718, 64 N.H. 612 (N.H. 1886).

Opinion

Bingham, J.

The demurrer raises difficult questions on the indictment in its present form. The solicitor, in his brief, moves to amend, making it conform to the facts and avoid a supposed constitutional objection. Whether the amendment is necessary, or, if it is, whether it could be allowed, is not decided, but a nolle prosequi may be entered at the trial term, and when an indictment is found in due form, on the facts of the case, the questions that arise will be considered. It is not advisable to pass upon fictitious and unnecessary cases. State v. Stevens, 36 N. H. 59, 60; Sceva v. True, 53 N. H. 627.

Case discharged.

Allen, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Related

Connecticut Valley Lumber Co. v. Monroe
52 A. 940 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1902)
State v. Morin
23 A. 629 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A. 718, 64 N.H. 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-baron-nh-1886.