State v. Stimpson

Jul 1, 1858
Reporters:
Before:
Hathaway
Hathaway, J.,

announced the opinion of the Court, that there was no ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‍error in the ruling and instructions of the Judge at Nisi Prius, and ordered an entry of

Exceptions overruled.

Rice, J.,

remarked, that the instructions, as ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‍applicable to the third count, are correct; as applicable to the fourth count, they would be erroneous, it not being alleged in that ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‍count, *611that the principal larceny was committed in this State. See Commonwealth v. Andrews, 2 Mass. 14.

As to this doctrine of constructive larceny, I do not feel ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‍at all satisfied; and, if it were a new question, I should be opposed to it. On principle, it is, in ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‍my judgment, erroneous ; and, being so, should not be extended.