Newland v. State
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Frazer, J.
The overruling of a motion to quash the indictment presents the only question in this record. It was charged that the defendant, “ on, &c., at, &c., did unlawfully cut down and remove, on and from land belonging to M. S., in said county, one tree of the value of fifty cents, the property of M. S., without having a license so to do from said M. S., or any other competent authority.”
The objection made to the indictment is, that it did not describe the lands upon which the trespass was committed, and is therefore not sufficiently certain. No direct authority is cited in support of the objection, and the approved precedents, strong evidence of what the law is, found in Archibald and Wharton, do not sustain it.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.