March, 1922.
Judgment of conviction reversed and indictment dismissed on the ground that it appears on its face that the facts constituting the alleged grand larceny may have occurred on different days, and that, therefore, there may have been different petit larcenies but no grand larceny. All concur.
Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDWARD W. ROBERTSON…
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Date published: Mar 1, 1922
• 3 The defendant also contends the rule is invalid because only the State legislature may define what…
Melbourne Corp. v. Hearing BoardIn Hill the court, while finding that the standards set forth in the statute in question were adequate,…