Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 Me. 320

State v. Roberts

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1851

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1851-07-01

On Exceptions from the District Court, Hathaway, J. Indictment for a conspiracy. After verdict against the defendant Roberts, he moved in arrest of judgment for insufficiency of the indictment. The motion was overruled, and exceptions were taken.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is not necessarily in law, a crime, which subjects the perpetrator to punishment, to defraud one of his money, goods, chattels or estate, nor to cheat and defraud one of the same; nor wrongfully and wickedly obtain his money and other property, designedly and with intent to defraud.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Chick

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1851-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 1992

1 district · 7 state decisions

30185118601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Tenney, J.

¶1This indictment consists of three counts. The first charges a conspiracy of the defendants, with the intent one James Hawes wrongfully and wickedly to injure and defraud of his money, goods and chattels and estate. The second is for a conspiracy the said James Hawes to injure, cheat and defraud of his moneys, goods and chattels. The third alleges a conspiracy of the defendants, wrongfully and wickedly to obtain from James Hawes his money, goods and other property, designedly and by false pretences, and with intent to defraud.

¶2The indictment contains no count or charge against the defendants under the 4th § of c. 161 of the Revised Statutes, inasmuch as there is no allegation that the fraud or cheating was a “ gross fraud or cheat.”

¶3It is not necessarily in law, a crime, which subjects the perpetrator to punishment, to defraud one of his money, goods, chattels or estate, nor to cheat and defraud one of the same; nor wrongfully and wickedly obtain his money and other property, designedly and with intent to defraud. Commonwealth v. Eastman & als. 1 Cush. 189; State v. Hewett & al. 31 Maine, 396. The two first counts are silent as to the means by which the defendants designed to effect their purposes in the conspiracy charged. Consequently, there is in them no allegation of any object, which is in itself criminal, nor of any means, of a criminal character, designed to be used in promotion of the object intended.

¶4The third count goes farther than the others. Is that a sufficient basis for a judgment ? It is a conspiracy for two or more persons, with the fraudulent and malicious intent, wrong*322fully and wickedly to commit any crime, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. R. S. c. 161, § 11. And if a person designedly and by any false pretences, shall obtain from another any money, goods or any property, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine and imprisonment in the county gaol. <§> 1.

Knowles, for the defendants.Waterhouse, County Att’y, for the State.

¶5The purpose, which was the object of the conspiracy, as alleged in the third count, not being criminal in itself, if there is any offence charged, it must consist in the means designed to be employed. These must be specifically stated. State v. Ripley & als. 31 Maine, 386. In this count the means are described only as being “false pretences.” By this the accused could not be sufficiently informed of the acts, against which they were called to answer. The description of the means are too general, and not in accordance with the established rules of criminal pleading.

¶6Exceptions sustained. Judgment arrested.

/34/me/320 · .json · Public domain