State v. Hickman
| Decision Date | 28 November 1910 |
| Docket Number | 18,497,18,498 |
| Citation | 127 La. 442,53 So. 680 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. HICKMAN et al |
Appeal from Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Grant; W F. Blackman, Judge.
Dennis Hickman and another were indicted for cattle stealing. A motion to quash the indictments was sustained, and the State appeals. Affirmed.
Walter Guion, Atty. Gen., and John R. Hunter, Dist. Atty. (R. G Pleasant, of counsel), for the State.
W. C. & J. B. Roberts, for appellees.
In case No. 18,497, the accused were indicted for stealing, on or about February 15, 1909, 15 head of cattle, of the value of $ 150. In case No. 18,498, the accused were indicted for stealing, on or about March 29, 1909, one cow, of the value of $ 25.
Both indictments were found under Act No. 124 of 1874, defining the crime of grand and petit larceny.
In 1910 the Legislature passed Act No. 64, reading as follows:
Accused moved to quash the indictments, on the ground that Act No. 64 of 1910 repealed Act No. 124 of 1874, relative to larceny, in so far as the theft of cattle is concerned, and that the repealing act is ex post facto as to the offenses charged in the indictments.
This motion was sustained by the judge below for the "reasons assigned by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Louisiana v. Callahan, 109 La. 946 ."
Act No. 124 of 1874, § 8, reads as follows:
Act No. 64 of 1910, in making the stealing of cattle a specific offense, punishable in a particular manner, necessarily withdrew that special subject from the operation of the statute on the general subject-matter of larceny.
Under Act No. 124 of 1874, the theft of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Culver
.... Page 665. 111 So.2d 665. Kerfert Butler ADAMS, Petitioner,. v. Richard O. CULVER, Custodian, Florida State Prison, Respondent. Supreme Court, of Florida. May 8, 1959. Page 666. Kerfert Butler Adams, in pro. per. Richard W. ...Kearns v. Rindsfoos, 1954, 161 Ohio St. 60, 118 N.E.2d 138, 43 A.L.R.2d 1316; State v. Hickman, 1910, 127 La. 442, 53 So. 680; People v. Haydon, 1951, 106 Cal.App.2d 105, 234 P.2d 720; United States v. Hess, 8 Cir., 1934, 71 F.2d 78; Price v. ......
-
State v. Davidson
...... Where two criminal statutes are repugnant as to the punishment that may be inflicted, they cannot stand together. State v. Hickman, 127 La. 442, 53 So. 680. Of course, the defendant could not be prosecuted under the repealed statute, but, as the indictment follows the language of the later act, it is sufficient, if it is otherwise legal, and the defendant is brought within its terms.' (Emphasis supplied.) . ......
-
State v. Hagen
...... punishment inflicted, for violations of the law, committed. while it was in force.' Yeaton v. United States, 5. Cranch, 281, 3 L.Ed. 101. . . See,. also, Kring v. State of Missouri, 107 U.S. 221, 2. S.Ct. 443, 27 L.Ed. 506; State ex rel. Theus v. Hickman, 127 La. 442, 53 So. 680; State v. Jones, 127 La. 768, 53 So. 985; State v. Guillory, 127 La. 950, 54 So. 297; Clark's Crim. Law, 26. . . If,. now, it be said that Act No. 146 of 1914 deals with an. offense against the state, whilst the ordinance deals with an. offense. ......
-
State v. McClellan
...... other, in that the latter act makes the crime intended to be. denounced a relative felony, while the former made the crime. only a misdemeanor. Where two criminal statutes are repugnant. as to the punishment that may be inflicted, they cannot stand. together. State v. Hickman, 127 La. 442, 53 So. 680. Of course, the defendant could not be prosecuted under the. repealed statute, but, as the indictment follows the language. of the later act, it is sufficient, if it is otherwise legal,. and the defendant is brought within its terms. . . [155. La. 40] ......