State v. Bundy

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Bundy

64 Me. 507

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJuly 1, 1874

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 64 Me. 507 (State v. Bundy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bundy, 64 Me. 507 (Me. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Dankorth, J.

The exceptions cannot be sustained. In an indictment for an assault and battery, the name of the person alleged to have been assaulted is used only for the purpose of identification. When such person is known equally well by two names, the use of either of them is sufficient, since either identifies the particular individual assaulted and makes the crime certain, so that [510]*510tbe respondent can be in no danger of being twice put in jeopardy in relation to it. Exceptions overruled.

Appleton, C. J., Walton, Barrows, Virgin and Peters, JJ., concurred.

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

Dankorth, J.

The exceptions cannot be sustained. In an indictment for an assault and battery, the name of the person alleged to have been assaulted is used only for the purpose of identification. When such person is known equally well by two names, the use of either of them is sufficient, since either identifies the particular individual assaulted and makes the crime certain, so that [510]*510tbe respondent can be in no danger of being twice put in jeopardy in relation to it. Exceptions overruled.

Appleton, C. J., Walton, Barrows, Virgin and Peters, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Me. 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bundy-me-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack