State v. Baron

5 A. 718, 64 N.H. 612
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1886·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

5 A. 718 (State v. Baron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)