Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 Blackf. 54

State v. Coggswell

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1832

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1832-06-01

<p>In an indictment for extortion whore nothing was due, there must be an averment that nothing was due; and if the charge be for taking more than was due, the indictment must show how much was due.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1894

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1832-06-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Blackford, J.

¶1This is an indictment against a justica of the peace for extortion,’ The indictment charges that the defendant, being a justice, &c., did, unlawfully and by colour of his office, take.and extort from one Robert Still the sum.of three' dollars; which sum of thr’ee dollars was not then and there due to the said justice; and which sum was three dollars more than was then and.there due to the said justice; contrary to the form of the statute, &c. There is a second count to the same effect with the first. ' The Circuit Court, on motion of the defendant, quashed the indictment.

¶2This indictment is clearly defective. ' There .is express authority for saying that, in an indictment for extortion where nothing is due, it must be' averred that nothing was due; .and that if the charge be for taking more than was due, the indictment must show how much was due. Neither of these allegations is contained in this indictment; and it cannot, therefore, be supported. Lake’s Case, 3 Leonard’s Rep. 268.—4 Comyn’s Digest, 154.

Per Curiam.

¶3The judgment is affirmed. To be certified, &c.

/3/blackf/54 · .json · Public domain