Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

71 Me. 354

State v. Hurley

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided August 5, 1880

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1880-08-05

On exceptions from superior court, Cumberland county. After verdict against the defendant, he filed a motion in arrest of judgment for reasons which sufficiently appear in the opinion. The motion was overruled by the presiding justice, and the defendant excepted. (Indictment.) State of Maine. Cumberland, ss.

Relies on Commonwealth v. Butterick

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-08-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1964

4 state decisions

10188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

AppletoN, C. J.

¶1This is an indictment for arson under B,.. S., c. 119, § 1.

¶2The indictment alleges that the defendant at Deering, &c., on twenty-eighth day of June, 1879, with force and arms the dwelling house of one Catherine Connors, there situate, in the night time felonously, willfully and maliciously did set fire to with, intent to burn the same and the said dwelling house was thereby then and there burnt and consumed.

¶3The setting fire to the dwelling house is alleged with, time,, —the night time of the twenty-eighth of June, 1879, and' with' place, —Deering. The rule is, that when a single fact is alleged: with time and place, the words "then and there,” subsequently-used as to the occurrence of another fact, the burning thereby,, refer to the same point of time, and necessarily import that the' two were co-existent. Com. v. Butterick, 100 Mass. 12. Where, more times than one have been mentioned in the indictment, it is; not sufficient to use the words "then and there,” because- it is. uncertain to which of the times previously named they refer: 1. Bishop’s Criminal Procedure, (2d ed.) § 414; State v. Hill, 55 Maine, 365. But in this indictment but one time is named.

¶4But if the indictment was held not sufficiently to describe an: offence in the night, then it must be regarded as describing one-in the day time, according to the argument of defendant’s counsel,, *356and as the punishment now is the same, whether committed by day or night no reason’ is perceived for an-esting judgment.

¶5Exceptions overruled.

¶6Judgment on. the verdict.

Walton, Barrows, Virgin, Libbey and SymoNds, JJ., concurred.
/71/me/354 · .json · Public domain