Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tive sanction. Such a paper cannot surely be read to aid N'W YORK, Nov. 1823. the conviction, not only of the party examined, but of another individual also.

After much discussion, the evidence was overruled.— Verdict Not Guilty.

[blocks in formation]

Present-the Hon. Richard Riker, Recorder.

Maxwell, District Attorney, Counsel for the Prosecution.
Price, Counsel for the Prisoner.

In this case it appeared the prisoner came into a store and told the keeper that a customer of the store had sent him for goods, and in consequence of the falsehood uttered by the prisoner, the store-keeper delivered him the goods. It was decided by the court after advisement, that where a person obtains goods under a false pretence, which false pretence is the inducement for parting with the property, such a case falling within the statute for punishing the obtaining of goods by false pretences, does not amount to a felony.

The prisoner was acquitted of the felony, but was indicted, tried, and convicted of obtaining the goods by false pretences under the statute.

This decision may have an important operation in cases of constructive larceny.

The People

V.

Bleeker.

In an indict

ment for mur

[blocks in formation]

This case came on to be argued before the supreme

der the length court on exceptions taken to the indictment in behalf of and depth of the prisoner. The exceptions were-That the mortal the wound

Hawk. b. 2, c.

must be ex- wounds alleged to have occasioned the death were not pospressed. 2 itively alleged to have been given by the prisoner, but 33, 81. 2 were only to be collected by intendment or implication; Chitty's C. L. and that the length and depth of the wounds alleged were not described to be of any dimensions.

488.

As to the first exception, the judges were unanimous that the wounds were laid to have been given by the prisoner with sufficient certainty, and of course overruled the objection but as to the last exception the judges were divided. Judge Taylor, who delivered his opinion, (and with which Judge Locke concurred,) remarked, that in all cases where the wound was charged to have been inflicted with a blunt instrument, such as a cudgel or a stick, the court would construe the word "wound" to signify a bruise; and that inasmuch as it was admitted that in the case of a bruise the dimensions need not be stated, therefore in his opinion it became useless in the indictment before the court. But Judges Hall, Lowrie, and Henderson held a contrary opinion.

It was by them stated, that in a case of this kind the court had no discretion.-It only became necessary to examine the law upon the subject, and to ascertain there

The State

V.

Owen,

by whether the indictment in question contained those RALEIGH, July, 1810. requisites which the law had declared essentially necessary. That if they had been called upon to carve out a system of jurisprudence, whether they would have required such nicety and formality they were unprepared to determine. But being required to pass upon the law as it is written, they felt themselves imperiously bound to determine thereby, disregarding any of the consequences which result from it. That authorities had been produced to the court from which it appeared that there was an uninterrupted chain of adjudication expressly in point from the earliest times to the present day: that in all cases of indictment for murder charged to have been committed by the giving of a wound, the nature and de- scription of the wound should be set forth. That these authorities were fortified and supported by the books of precedents, which have invariably pursued this nicety, except in a very ancient collection compiled by West about two hundred years ago. That as to the cases from West, in which this formality is not observed, they were susceptible of this remark: that these precedents were in Latin, and that the words "mortalem plagam" signified either a mortal wound, or mortal bruise; but that in the case before the court the indictment was in the English language, and it had charged the murder to have been committed by a mortal wound. That at the time this country adopted the common law of England, (if the court were to regard authority,) this formality was required, and being so required by law, the court could not dispense with it.

A majority of the court, therefore, being of the latter opinion, the bill of indictment was pronounced exceptionable:

RALEIGH, consequently, upon it sentence of death cannot be passed July, 1810. upon the prisoner.

The State

V.

Owen.

The keeper of the jail having received a mittimus to retain the prisoner, he will of course remain in jail until October term of the superior court, when a new bill will be drawn, and another trial will take place.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Jos. Ogden Hoffman, Recorder.

Messrs. Griffin and Emmet, Counsel for the People.
Messrs. Sampson and Colden, Counsel for Defendants.

The defendants were indicted for a conspiracy. The indictment stated, that;

The defendants being workmen and journeymen in the art, mystery, and manual occupation of cordwainers, on the 18th October, 1809, &c. unlawfully, perniciously, and deceitfully designing and intending to form and unite themselves into an unlawful club and combination, and to make and ordain unlawful by-laws, rules, and orders among themselves, and

The People

V.

Melvin and others.

thereby to govern themselves and other workmen in the said art, and N'W YORK' unlawfully and unjustly to extort great sums of money by means thereof, July, 1810. on the day and year aforesaid, with force and arms, at, &c. together with divers other workmen and journeymen in the same art, &c. (whose names to the jury are yet unknown,) did unlawfully assemble and meet together, and being so, &c. did then and there, unjustly and corruptly conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together, that none of them, the said conspirators, after the said 18th October, would work for any master or person whatsoever, in the said art mystery, and occupation, who should employ any workman or journeyman, or other person in the said art, not being a member of the said club or combination, after notice given &c. to discharge such workman, &c. from the employ of such master, &c. to the great damage and oppression not only of their said masters, employing them in said art, &c. but also of divers other workmen and journeymen in the said art, mystery, and occupation, to the evil example, &c. and against the peace, &c.

2d Count has the same general averments, and states, that the defendants, designing and intending to form and unite themselves into an unlawful club and combination, and to make and ordain unlawful and arbitrary by-laws, rules and orders among themselves, and thereby to govern themselves in, (as in the first count,) and unlawfully and unjustly to exact and extort great sums of money by means thereof, &c. did unlawfully assemble and meet together, and being so met together, &c. did then and there, unjustly, &c. conspire, combine, confederate, and agree, that none of the said conspirators, after the said day, &c. would work for any master or person whatsoever, in the said art, &c. who shall employ any workman &c. who shall thereafter, infringe or break any or either of the said unlaw ful rules orders, or by-laws. Concluding as above

3d Count. That the defendants conspired, &c. not to work for any master or person who should employ any workmen, &c. who should break any of their by-laws, unless such workman, &c. should pay to the club such sum as should be agreed on, as a penalty for the breach of such unlawful rules, orders, or by-laws, and that they did, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, refuse to work and labour for James Corwin and Charles Aimes, because they, C. and A. did employ one Edward Whitess, a cordwainer, (alleging that the said E. W. had broken one of such rules and orders, and refused to pay two dollars, &c. as a penalty for breaking such rules and orders.) and continued in refusing to work, &c. for C. & A. until the said C. & A. discharged the said E. W. &c. &c.

4th Count. That they (the defendants) wickedly, and intending unjustly, unlawfully, and by indirect means. to impoverish the said Edward Whitess, and hinder him from following his trade, did confederate, conspire, &c. by wrongful and indirect means, to impoverish the said E. W. and to deprive and hinder him from following his said art, &c. and that they, according to the said unlawful, &c. conspiracy. &c. indirectly, unlawfully, &c. did prevent, &c. the said E. W. from following his said art, &c. and did greatly impoverish him.

5th Count. That the defendants did conspire and agree, by indirect means, to projudice and impoverish the said E. W. and prevent him from exercising his trade.

« AnteriorContinuar »