Cohn v. Blumenburg
Opinion of the Court
— This is a demurrer upon the ground that the words charged do not accuse plaintiff of the crime of larceny. I think, however, the allegations in some of the counts are sufficient. Whether under our statute concerning crimes and punishments they do not amount to a charge of larceny, I deem it unnecessary to consider very fully. It is alleged that they were spoken with intent to cause it to be believed that plaintiff was guilty of the crime of larceny, and I think that this averment obviates the objection that they do not really make the charge. It is also to be observed that each count charges the speaking of the express words, “ He is a thief,” and whether, even
This fact also makes the question of the demurrer pretty much immaterial, for even if it were sustained, the first and fifth counts contain all that is necessary as a cause of action.
If the defendant had drawn his demurrer to each count separately, instead of to the six collectively, I would probably have sustained it as to most of the counts, but as it is, if any one count demurred to is good, the demurrer cannot be sustained. In the form in which it is drawn it must be sustained or overruled as an entirety.
Demurrer overruled, with leave to answer, &c,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.