History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hamblett v. State
18 N.H. 384
Superior Court of New Hampshir...
1846
Check Treatment
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.

Case Details

Case Name: Hamblett v. State
Court Name: Superior Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Dec 15, 1846
Citation: 18 N.H. 384
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.