United States v. Murray

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

United States v. Murray

27 F. Cas. 38, 1 Cranch 141

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedNovember 15, 1803

StatusPublished

This text of 27 F. Cas. 38 (United States v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Murray, 27 F. Cas. 38, 1 Cranch 141 (circtddc 1803).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT

were of opinion that the evidence might go to the jury; they were inclined to be of opinion that bank-notes were within the meaning of the words, “personal goods,” in the act of congress (1 Stat. 116); ■that the case in Leach, 468, was upon the construction of the act of parliament, and not binding as to the construction of the act of congress. That if the jury should find the prisoner guilty of stealing the bill only, the question might come on again on a motion in arrest of judgment. If they should find him generally guilty, they would consider the question in fixing the fine.

The jury found the prisoner “guilty of stealing the watch only.”

E. J. Lee, for the prisoner, moved in arrest of judgment, that the jury had not found him guilty or acquitted him of the other things charged in the same count, to wit, the banknote and the silver dollars, so that if he should be indicted again he would not be able to plead the conviction or acquittal.

But THE COURT overruled the motion and gave the judgment—-39 stripes and 10 dollars fine, &c.

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

THE COURT

were of opinion that the evidence might go to the jury; they were inclined to be of opinion that bank-notes were within the meaning of the words, “personal goods,” in the act of congress (1 Stat. 116); ■that the case in Leach, 468, was upon the construction of the act of parliament, and not binding as to the construction of the act of congress. That if the jury should find the prisoner guilty of stealing the bill only, the question might come on again on a motion in arrest of judgment. If they should find him generally guilty, they would consider the question in fixing the fine.

The jury found the prisoner “guilty of stealing the watch only.”

E. J. Lee, for the prisoner, moved in arrest of judgment, that the jury had not found him guilty or acquitted him of the other things charged in the same count, to wit, the banknote and the silver dollars, so that if he should be indicted again he would not be able to plead the conviction or acquittal.

But THE COURT overruled the motion and gave the judgment—-39 stripes and 10 dollars fine, &c.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 F. Cas. 38, 1 Cranch 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-murray-circtddc-1803.