Skip to main content
· 2/28/1882

People v. Leong Quong

Citations

  • 60 Cal. 107
  • 1882 Cal. LEXIS 409

Syllabus

<p>Larceny—Variance as to Ownership op Property—Name.—The appellants were convicted of the crime of grand larceny, for stealing a horse and wagon, the alleged property of one Sang Hop. On the trial of the case the owner of the property stolen testified that he had two names— a business name and a personal one. His personal name was Yup Chin, and his business name Sang Hop; and that in all his business transactions and dealings, for years, he has been known by his business name only.</p> <p>Held: The name of the owner of property stolen is not a material part of the offense charged. It is only required to identify the transaction, so that the defendant, by proper plea, may protect himself against another prosecution for the same offense. The owner may have a name by reputation, and if it is proved that he is better known by that name than any other, the charge in the information by that name is sufficient.</p>

Judges: McKee

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.