TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Townsley

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. WILLIAM TOWNSLEY

People v. Townsley, 39 Cal. 405 (1870)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1870
Docket
No. 2,171
Judges
Rhodes
Citations
39 Cal. 405
Syllabus
Laboeny. —Itis competent for the Legislature to declare that the larceny of specific property designated shall be deemed grand larceny, without regard to the value of the property. Indicdient under Statute of March 28, 1868.—Under the Statute of March. 28,1868, providing that feloniously stealing and tailing away of any horse, mare, or gelding, etc., shall be deemed grand larceny, itis not necessary to state in the indictment the value of the animal alleged to have been stolen.
Summary
Appeal from the County Court of Kern County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Rhodes

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Rhodes, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The Statute of March 28, 1868 (Statutes 1867-8, p. 461), provides that “every person who shall feloniously steal, take and carry away * * "" any horse, mare, gelding, etc., * * * the property of another, shall be deemed guilty of grand larceny.” The element of value does not enter into the definition of the offense. It is competent to the Legislature to declare, that the larceny of specific property designated, shall be deemed grand larceny, -without regard to the value of the property; and this was the purpose of that statute. The indictment was found under that statute, and in describing the horse alleged to have been stolen, its value is not stated. The indictment describes the offense with which the defendant is charged, substantially in the language of the statute; and the authorities cited by the Attorney *407 General show that it is the well settled doctrine of this Court, that in such case, the indictment is sufficient.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1888: 11889: 21893: 11895: 11896: 11904: 11953: 11974: 12014: 118882026peak 1889 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Thomas43 Cal. App. 3d 862 (1974)
  2. State v. Young43 P. 881 (Wash. 1896) · Dissent
  3. People v. Whitmer230 Cal. App. 4th 906 (2014)
  4. State v. Streeter22 P. 753 (Nev. 1889)
  5. People v. Chuey Ying Git34 P. 1080 (Cal. 1893)
  6. Territory of Montana v. Pendry9 Mont. 67 (1889)

Most recent

  1. People v. Whitmer230 Cal. App. 4th 906 (2014)
  2. People v. Thomas43 Cal. App. 3d 862 (1974)
  3. People v. Piazza252 P.2d 947 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)
  4. State v. La Chall77 P. 3 (Utah 1904)
  5. State v. Young43 P. 881 (Wash. 1896) · Dissent
  6. Wilson v. State62 N.W. 209 (Neb. 1895)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list