State v. Pierson
| Citation | 13 N.W. 291,59 Iowa 271 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA v. PIERSON. |
| Decision Date | 19 September 1882 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Des Moines district court.
The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted upon a charge of stealing a bank check, and he appeals.T. B. Snyder and John Greiner, for appellant.
Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The charging part of the indictment is as follows: “That Ole Pierson, on the seventeenth day of June, 1881, at Des Moines, county and state aforesaid, a bill of exchange, to-wit, a bank check for the payment of money, to-wit, an order for the payment of money purporting to be signed by C. S. Bartlett, and payable at the Union National Bank at Chicago, Illinois, and of date of the sixth day of June, 1881, and of the property, goods, and chattels of one Nels Vorene, and of the value of $20.97, feloniously did take, steal, and carry away, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Iowa.” Upon the return of the verdict the defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment which was in these words: (1) That no crime was charged against him in the indictment; (2) that the indictment does not aver or charge that any money was due on the bill of exchange, bank check, or order for the payment of money claimed to have been the subject of the larceny, or secured thereby, and remaining unsatisfied or unpaid; (3) that the indictment does not charge that the bill of exchange, bank check, or order for the payment of money charged to have been the subject of the larceny, was for the payment of any particular or definite sum of money; (4) that the indictment does not charge any facts showing the bill of exchange, bank check, or order for the payment of money charged to have been stolen to have been of any value whatever; (5) that the indictment does not charge the bill of exchange, bank check, or order for the payment of money charged to have been the subject of the larceny to have been payable to any person; (6) that the indictment is vague, uncertain, and insufficient.
The overruling of this motion is made the only ground of complaint upon this appeal. The stealing of bank notes, promissory notes, bills of exchange, or other bills, orders, or certificates, is made larceny by section 3902 of the Code; and by section 3914 it is provided that the money due on any such instrument, or secured thereby, and remaining unsatisfied, shall be adjudged the value...
To continue reading
Request your trial