Hamblett v. State
Hamblett v. The State, in Error
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.
Parker, C. J.
There is very little discrepancy between the authorities in this case. It is not necessary, in an indictment for larceny of bills or notes, to set out the instruments stolen by a particular description of them. But the number should be stated, and nearly all the cases show that the value of each should be averred. Johns. Case, 2 Russ. on Crimes 110, is not, perhaps, an exception, if it may be inferred that the nine bank notes which it was alleged in the indictment were stolen by the defendant, amounting in the whole to the sum of ¿£9, and of the value of ¿£9, were for ¿£1 each, and of that value.
Hpon all the authorities, the indictment in this case is fatally defective. “ Sundry bank notes” is quite too loose. The principle has been settled here, in the cases referred to, which it is perhaps to be regretted were not reported.
Judgment reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
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.