From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Nichols

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Cheshire
Dec 1, 1876
58 N.H. 41 (N.H. 1876)

Opinion

Decided December, 1876.

In an indictment properly laying an offence on a particular day, a continuando may be, rejected as surplusage.

INDICTMENT, for embezzlement alleged to have been committed on a certain day, "and on divers other days between that day, and a certain other subsequent day." The respondent moved to quash.

Wheeler Faulkner, for the respondent.

Woodward, solicitor, for the state.


A day certain being named, and the continuando being rejected as surplusage, the indictment is good. People v. Adams, 17 Wend. 475; Cook v. State, 11 Ga. 53; King v. Kixon, 10 Mod. 335; State v. La Coste, 2 Mason 129; Hawkins P. C., B. 2, c. 25, ss. 32, 74.

Motion denied.


Summaries of

State v. Nichols

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Cheshire
Dec 1, 1876
58 N.H. 41 (N.H. 1876)
Case details for

State v. Nichols

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. NICHOLS

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Cheshire

Date published: Dec 1, 1876

Citations

58 N.H. 41 (N.H. 1876)

Citing Cases

United States v. Kissel

United States v. Irvine, 98 U.S. 450. Where an indictment charges a crime which is not essentially continuous…

State v. Martel

State v. O'Donnell, 81 Maine, 271; State v. Beaton, 79 Maine, 314. Hence, there is no duplicity or…