State v. Dwyre

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Dwyre

20 S.C.L. 287

DecidedMarch 15, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 20 S.C.L. 287 (State v. Dwyre) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Dwyre, 20 S.C.L. 287 (S.C. Ct. App. 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

In an indictment for larceny, the name of the person to whom the goods belongs must be truly stated, as it serves to inform the accused of the precise offence with which he is charged, and as a security against another prosecution for the sam.e offence; and for the same reason it is equally indispensable that the proof should correspond with the allegation; therefore, where there was a conviction on an indictment which charged the goods stolen to fee the property of “ Jacob Chamberlain, Frederick G. Chamberlain, and Moses Chamberlain, otherwise known as co-partners in trade, by the name and firm of Jacob Chamberlain .& Co.” and the proof was, that they belonged to Jacob Chamberlain and Company, without proving what persons constituted that Company, a new trial was ordered.

(See State v. Ryan & Jones, 4 M’C. 16. Arch. Crim. Pl. 118.)

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

In an indictment for larceny, the name of the person to whom the goods belongs must be truly stated, as it serves to inform the accused of the precise offence with which he is charged, and as a security against another prosecution for the sam.e offence; and for the same reason it is equally indispensable that the proof should correspond with the allegation; therefore, where there was a conviction on an indictment which charged the goods stolen to fee the property of “ Jacob Chamberlain, Frederick G. Chamberlain, and Moses Chamberlain, otherwise known as co-partners in trade, by the name and firm of Jacob Chamberlain .& Co.” and the proof was, that they belonged to Jacob Chamberlain and Company, without proving what persons constituted that Company, a new trial was ordered.

(See State v. Ryan & Jones, 4 M’C. 16. Arch. Crim. Pl. 118.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 S.C.L. 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dwyre-scctapp-1834.