Case Name: Donaghe v. Roudeboush
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1814-03-26
Citations: 4 Munf. 251
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Donaghe v. Roudeboush.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 101–101

Head Matter:
*Donaghe v. Roudeboush.
Argued Friday, Jan. 8th, 1813.
i. Trespass — Taking Away Chattels — Declaration—Sufficiency. — In trespass for taking and carrying away goods and chattels, it is sufficient to charge in the declaration that the goods were the property of the plaintiff, without also charging that they were taken out of his possession.
See 1 Ghitty on pleading, 365; and 2 do. 379.
a. Same — Same—Same,—In declaring for the taking away of a quantity of poultry, consisting of turkies, geese, ducks and hens, it is not necessary to state how many there were of each description, the collective value of the whole "being stated.
The appellee brought his action of trespass against the appellant in the Superior Court of law ; charging in his declaration that the defendant with force and arms took and carried away “one waggon, the property of the plaintiff then and there being, of the value of 120 dollars, and also a quantity of poultry, to wit, turkies, geese, ducks and hens, of the value of thirty dollars, the property of the plaintiff.” On the plea of not guilty, a verdict was found for the plaintiff for 100 dollars damages. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment — 1st, because the declaration did not charge that the property taken by the defendant was in the possession of the plaintiff at the time of the taking, “and therefore did not charge a trespassand 2dly, because the poultry charged to be taken*, was not sufficiently described ; it not being stated how many there were of each description.
The court over-ruled these objections, and entered judgment according to the verdict, from which the defendant appealed to this court.
Saturday, March 26th, 1814,
For monographic note on Trespass, see end of case.

Opinion:
the president reported the court's opinion that the judgment be affirmed.