State v. Leavitt

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Leavitt

32 Me. 183

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 1, 1850·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Shepley, C. J.,

orally.—The request to the Judge assumed that, if certain acts would support a charge for larceny, they could not support an indictment for malicious mischief. But there is no such principle of law. This court has recently decided that-acts, which might have supported an indictment for arson, would support a charge for malicious mischief. The instruction requested was properly refused.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Shepley, C. J.,

orally.—The request to the Judge assumed that, if certain acts would support a charge for larceny, they could not support an indictment for malicious mischief. But there is no such principle of law. This court has recently decided that-acts, which might have supported an indictment for arson, would support a charge for malicious mischief. The instruction requested was properly refused.

Exceptions overruled.

State v. Leavitt, 32 Me. 183 (Me. 1850).

Pincite

32 Me. 183 (State v. Leavitt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related