United States v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 13 May 1880 |
| Citation | 2 F. 502 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. JACKSON. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
Mr O'Ray, U.S. Attorney, for the United States.
Mr Clark, for respondent.
The Revised Statutes, in section 5132, punish a person 'respecting whom proceedings in bankruptcy are commenced,' whether by his own petition or that of his creditors, 'who, with intent to defraud, wilfully and fraudulently conceals from his assignee, or omits from his inventory, any property or effects required by the title to be described therein. ' The indictment charges such an offence. It is demurred to upon the ground that there is no intelligible allegation that the goods and chattels said to have been concealed were the property of the defendant when the proceedings were begun. That the defendant was made a bankrupt in March, 1876, and that an assignee was chosen and qualified in April, are set forth in a mode not objected to. After stating these facts the indictment proceeds to say that Cornelius Coolidge, the assignee, was entitled to have and receive, for the benefit of the defendant's creditors all the estate and effects assignable under the laws of the United States concerning bankruptcy yet that the said Noah Jackson, after the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy respecting him, to-wit, on the first day of November, 1876, at Hillsborough, in New Hampshire, did, with intent to defraud his creditors, etc., wilfully and fraudulently conceal from his assignee, and has continued to conceal from him, a large part of his property and effects required by law to be described in the inventory by law required to be filed, no part of which was exempt or belonged to the defendant after said proceedings were commenced, to-wit: 'did unlawfully, etc., on said first day of November, conceal, etc., * * * (giving a full description of the horses, harness, etc., with values added, at the end of the description,) and all then and there of the property of him, the said Noah Jackson.'
The objection is that the last line in quotation marks refers to the first of November, and alleges that the goods were then the property of the defendant, instead of saying that they were so at the moment of the commencement of the proceeding. If they were his in November, they should not have been given to the assignee, who was entitled only to what was the bankrupt's property in March.
As a criticism upon the allegations of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Smith, Crim. A. No. 28835.
...(Emphasis supplied) United States v. Rhodes, C.C., 30 F. 431. See also United States v. Olmstead, D.C., 5 F.2d 712; United States v. Jackson, C.C., 2 F. 502. Such a technical or formal variance which does not affect substantial right shall be disregarded. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Crimin......
-
Miller v. United States
...the substance of a crime, if sufficiently stated and its meaning is understood, will be looked upon as a formal defect. United States v. Jackson (C. C.) 2 F. 502. And, so, if an essential averment be faulty in form yet may by fair construction be found within the text of the indictment it i......
-
United States v. Otero
...the substance of a crime, if sufficiently stated and its meaning is understood, will be looked upon as a formal defect. U. S. v. Jackson (C. C.) 2 F. 502. And, so, if an essential averment be faulty in form yet may by fair construction be found within the text of the indictment it is suffic......
-
The State v. McConnell
...be regarded as clerical and formal, and one which did not mislead or result to the respondent's prejudice." In the case of United States v. Jackson, 2 F. 502, question was whether, in a prosecution of a bankrupt for concealment of goods, the indictment sufficiently alleged that the goods ch......