¶1arrested the judgment, being of opinion that the discharge of the jury without the defendant’s consent, was equivalent to an acquittal as to the dollars, and that the defendant might have pleaded it with an averment that the stealing of the dollars and of the order was one act of taking, if such an averment be necessary; which is doubtful, as the indictment charges it to be one act of theft; and upon a general verdict of guilty he would have been sentenced to the penitentiary.
4 D.C. 465
United States v. Farring
Decided May 15, 1834
Indictment for larceny. The defendant had been indicted at this term for stealing two silver dollars, and an order drawn by Hoffman and Stephenson on for $15. Upon the trial, the order, produced in evidence, was drawn by Hoffmans and Stephenson. thereupon directed the clerk to enter a nolle prosequi, and the jury was discharged without the consent of the defendant, and a new indictment was found by the grand jury, reciting the order truly.
Decided 1834-05-15