State v. Rollo

Headnote

Criminal Law—Larceny—Indictment; Sufficiency of— Corporation ; Property of; Name of—Pleading—Practice.

In an indictment for larceny, where the name of the corporation is stated as owner of the property, there need be no averment that it is a corporation.

The indictment charged, on August 1st, 1901, the larceny by the defendant of certain books, giving the value of the same, “ of the goods and chattels of the Wilmington Institute,” etc.

for defendant, moved to quash the indictment as insufficient because it did not allege that the Wilmington Institute, whose property was alleged to have been stolen by the defendant, was a corporation or an association of persons, or indicate in any way what it was, and, furthermore, it did not aver the correct corporate name thereof.

Stadden vs. the People, 82 Ill., 432 ; People, vs. Boget, 36 Cal., 245 .

Where the name of a corporation is stated as owner, there need be no averment that it is a corporation.

2 Bishop Crim. Prac., Sec. 718, p. 326; State vs. Fitzpatrick, 9 Houst., 385 ; State vs. Bench, 68 Mo., 78 ; Fisher vs. State, 40 N. J. L., 169 ; P. vs. McDonnell, 80 Cal., 285 ; 13 Am. St., 159; Stanley vs. Richmond &c. R, R., 89 N. C., 331 ; Hatfield vs. State, 76 Ga., 499 ; State vs. Grant, 104 N. C., 908 ; State vs. Shields, 89 Mo., 259 ; Braithwaite vs. State, 28 Neb., 832 ; Reg vs. Stokes, 8 C. & P., 151; 34 E. C. L., 333; Enc. P. & P., Vol. 12, p. 973; 2 Va. Cases, 296.

It is sufficient to allege and prove the name by which a corporation is generally known.

1 Thomp., 284—291; Rex vs. Atkinson, 2 Moody, 278.