State v. David

Delaware County Court of Quarter Sessions

State v. David

1 Del. Cas. 160, 1797 Del. LEXIS 26

CourtDelaware County Court of Quarter Sessions

DecidedNovember 17, 1797

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Del. Cas. 160 (State v. David) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Delaware County Court of Quarter Sessions primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. David, 1 Del. Cas. 160, 1797 Del. LEXIS 26 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1797).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam. Bassett, C. J.

(Charge.) Gentlemen, there is no doubt there ought to be evidence to prove that defendant took and carried away before he is convicted. There is no need of positive proof, but it ought to be sufficient to satisfy you the party did the fact. It does not follow that because a man is possessed of a piece of ground that he is possessed of everything in and upon it; for unless he knows and consents to a thing’s being there, he is not in possession of it.

Verdict guilty.

[Note.] Defendant’s character was bad.

N.B. Mr. Attorney’s position is too extensive. The rule, usque ad caelum.et infernos, only relates to appurtenances, and although knowledge and consent are good prima facie evidence of possession, yet I think the Court should not have suffered the Attorney General’s rule to have extended to such kind of property, although qualified with their exception, for it is not so found in the books.

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

Per Curiam. Bassett, C. J.

(Charge.) Gentlemen, there is no doubt there ought to be evidence to prove that defendant took and carried away before he is convicted. There is no need of positive proof, but it ought to be sufficient to satisfy you the party did the fact. It does not follow that because a man is possessed of a piece of ground that he is possessed of everything in and upon it; for unless he knows and consents to a thing’s being there, he is not in possession of it.

Verdict guilty.

[Note.] Defendant’s character was bad.

N.B. Mr. Attorney’s position is too extensive. The rule, usque ad caelum.et infernos, only relates to appurtenances, and although knowledge and consent are good prima facie evidence of possession, yet I think the Court should not have suffered the Attorney General’s rule to have extended to such kind of property, although qualified with their exception, for it is not so found in the books.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Del. Cas. 160, 1797 Del. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-david-paqtrsessdelawa-1797.