State v. Freels
| Decision Date | 31 July 1842 |
| Citation | 22 Tenn. 228 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. FREELS. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Attorney General, for the State.
J. H. Crozier, for the defendant, cited Evans v. The State, 1 Humph. 394; 1 Chitty Cr. L. 255.
This is an indictment for an assault with intent to rob. The indictment contains two counts. The first count charges an “assault with intent the moneys of Collin Roberts, from the person and against the will of the said Collin Roberts, then and there feloniously, wilfully, forcibly and violently, to steal, take and carry away from, and out of the possession of the said Collin Roberts.”
The second count charges that the defendant, upon the said Collin Roberts, “feloniously did make an assault, by then and there besetting the dwelling-house of the said Collin Roberts, with sticks, stones, axes and guns, and by battering the walls and doors of the said dwelling-house of the said Collin Roberts, he the said Collin Roberts, and his family being then and there in said dwelling-house, with intent the moneys of the said Collin Roberts, from the person and possession and against the will of the said Collin Roberts, then and there feloniously, wilfully and violently, to steal, take and carry away.” The jury found the defendant guilty and that he be imprisoned in the penitentiary two years.
Reasons in arrest of judgment were filed, and upon consideration thereof the court arrested the judgment, and the attorney general in behalf of the State appealed to this court. This indictment is framed upon the 54th section of the criminal code. It provides that “whoever shall assault another with intent feloniously and wilfully to commit a robbery, shall undergo confinement in the said jail and penitentiary house, not less than two years nor more than six years.”
In the case of Evans v. The State, 1 Humph. 394, this court decided, in an indictment upon the 52d section, for an assault with intent to murder, that an actual and personal assault must be made upon the party, coupled with a felonious intent, in order to complete the offences created by the 52, 53 and 54 sections of the law. The besetting the house of another, although an assault in law, is not an actual assault upon the person, within the meaning of the before recited section. We have been requested to review this decision, and it is earnestly argued by the attorney general that the statute makes no distinction as to the manner or character of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perue v. State
...65 Ga. 449; James v. State, 104 Ala. 20, 16 So. 94; Scott v. Comm., 55 Va. 687, 14 Gratt. 687; Storrs v. State, 3 Mo. 9; State v. Freels, 22 Tenn. 228, 3 Hum. 228; v. Kurtz, 317 Mo. 380, 295 S.W. 747; State v. England, (Mo.) 11 S.W.2d 1024. The case of State v. Kurtz, supra, is almost exact......