State v. Dougherty

Citations

• 22 Del. 398
• 6 Penne. 398
• 70 A. 16
• 1906 Del. LEXIS 47

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Larceny—Property Stolen; Alleged Owner of —Different Owner Proved—Nolle Prosequi Entered— Subsequent Trial—Plea of Former Jeopardy.</p> <p>1. In an indictment for larceny, the property alleged to have been stolen was stated to be the property of,‘ ‘Joseph Bancroft Sons’ Company” At the trial it appeared from theStates evidence that it was the property of “Joseph Bancroft and Sons’ Company”. The State permitted to enter a nolle prosequi.</p> <p>2. At a subsequent trial upon an indictment which charged that the property alleged to have been stolen was the property of Joseph Bancroft and Sons' Company”, the defendant contended that he could not be convicted because he had been put in jeopardy for the same offence in the former case: Held that the defendant was not in jeopardy under the original indictment within the contemplation of the Constitution of this State.</p>