60 Cal. 107, 10,703, People v. Leong Quong

Docket Nº:10,703
Citation:60 Cal. 107
Opinion Judge:McKEE, Judge
Party Name:THE PEOPLE v. LEONG QUONG et al.
Attorney:Thomas F. Barry, for Appellants. No brief on file for Respondent.
Judge Panel:JUDGES: McKee, J. Morrison, C. J., and Ross, Myrick, Thornton, and Sharpstein, JJ., concurred.
Case Date:February 28, 1882
Court:Supreme Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 107

60 Cal. 107

THE PEOPLE

v.

LEONG QUONG et al.

No. 10,703

Supreme Court of California

February 28, 1882

Appeal from a judgment of conviction, and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Ferral, J.

COUNSEL

Thomas F. Barry, for Appellants.

No brief on file for Respondent.

JUDGES: McKee, J. Morrison, C. J., and Ross, Myrick, Thornton, and Sharpstein, JJ., concurred.

OPINION

McKEE, Judge

In Bank. The appellants, in this case, were convicted in the Court below of the crime of grand larceny, for stealing a horse and wagon, the alleged property of one Sang Hop. The commission of the offense was proved by unquestioned evidence. No exception is taken to the charge of the Court to the jury, but it is contended that the verdict is contrary to law, because of a variance between the information and evidence as to the name of the injured party.

On the trial of the case the owner of the property stolen testified that he had two names--a business name and a personal one. His personal name was Yup Chin, and his business name Sang Hop; and that in all his business transactions and dealings, for years, he has been known by his business name only.

The name of a person is the designation by which he is known. As, therefore, the owner of the property was known

Page 108

by the name of Sang Hop, that name was sufficient, in legal proceedings, whether he had another name or not. As is said by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts: " The name which was given to a person at the time he was baptized is to be taken as originally, and presumed to continue his name; but if after his baptism he adopts and uses another name by which he is subsequently well known in the community where he resides, prior to and at the time of the alleged sale, it is sufficient if he is described by that name in the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP