State v. Stimpson

45 Me. 608
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 1, 1858·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Hathaway, J.,

announced the opinion of the Court, that there was no error in the ruling and instructions of the Judge at Nisi Prius, and ordered an entry of

Exceptions overruled.

Rice, J.,

remarked, that the instructions, as applicable to the third count, are correct; as applicable to the fourth count, they would be erroneous, it not being alleged in that count, [611] that the principal larceny was committed in this State. See Commonwealth v. Andrews, 2 Mass. 14.

As to this doctrine of constructive larceny, I do not feel at all satisfied; and, if it were a new question, I should be opposed to it. On principle, it is, in my judgment, erroneous ; and, being so, should not be extended.

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

State v. Stimpson, 45 Me. 608 (Me. 1858).

45 Me. 608 (State v. Stimpson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

CARDIEL
25 I. & N. Dec. 12 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 2009)
In re Loomis
121 N.W. 456 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1909)