State v. Comfort
Can I rely on this case?
Yes — no negative treatment found
Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.
State v. Comfort
Opinion of the Court
This is an indictment for cruelty to animals under Laws 1871, ch. 34, § 1. The specification of the offence is that the defendant, with another, “did cruelly, wilfully, and with force and arms, overdrive two horses, * * * by reason of which said overdriving the said two horses were tortured and tormented.”
It is objected that the indictment should go beyond the words of the statute, and more particularly describe what constituted the overdriving. But a charge in an indictment may be made in the words of the statute, without a particular statement of facts and circumstances, when, by using those words, the act in which an offence consists is fully, directly and expressly alleged, without any uncertainty or ambiguity. Com. v. Welsh, 7 Gray, 324. Such is the case in this indictment.
To the indictment the defendant interposed a plea of a former acquittal, and on the trial offered, to prove the plea, a former indictment, apparently for the same offence, a
Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- State of Minnesota v. Oscar H. Comfort
- Cited By
- 11 cases
- Status
- Published