State v. Pettis

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Pettis

63 Me. 124

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJuly 1, 1873

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 63 Me. 124 (State v. Pettis) 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. Pettis, 63 Me. 124 (Me. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Dickerson, J.

It is not competent for a person charged with larceny of goods to introduce evidence of his declarations made after the property came into his possession, that he obtained them by finding.

The allegation of property in a complaint for an alleged larceny of goods is sustained, if the complainant at the time the larceny was committed, held possession of them under a loan from, or contract of sale with the owner.

The rulings and instructions of the judge of the superior court being in accordance with these principles, afford no legal ground of exception. Exceptions overruled.

Walton, Dickerson, Daneorth, Yirgin and Peters, JJ., concurred. Appleton, C. J., and Barrows, J., did not concur upon either point. They thought the declarations of Pettis admissible as tending to disprove any felonious intent, and that no property, general or special, in Charles A. Dalton was shown by the evidence.

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

Dickerson, J.

It is not competent for a person charged with larceny of goods to introduce evidence of his declarations made after the property came into his possession, that he obtained them by finding.

The allegation of property in a complaint for an alleged larceny of goods is sustained, if the complainant at the time the larceny was committed, held possession of them under a loan from, or contract of sale with the owner.

The rulings and instructions of the judge of the superior court being in accordance with these principles, afford no legal ground of exception. Exceptions overruled.

Walton, Dickerson, Daneorth, Yirgin and Peters, JJ., concurred. Appleton, C. J., and Barrows, J., did not concur upon either point. They thought the declarations of Pettis admissible as tending to disprove any felonious intent, and that no property, general or special, in Charles A. Dalton was shown by the evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Me. 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pettis-me-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack