Case Name: Benjamin McKinney v. The People
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1875-06-18
Citations: 32 Mich. 284
Docket Number: 
Parties: Benjamin McKinney v. The People.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
Benjamin McKinney v. The People.
JT)iformation: Malicious destruction of personal property of the value of fifty dollars. An information charging that the defendant, on a day and at a place named, in the county, “ a certain harness of the value of fifty dollars, of the personal property of one Edwin R. wilson, - then' 'and there being found, feloniously, willfully and maliciously did then and there injure and destroy, by then and there cutting the lines and martingales •of said harness, and talcing the rings from said martingales, contrary to the statute,” etc., is held a good information for the malicious destruction of personal property- of the value of fifty dollars.
Submitted on briefs June 10.
Decided June 18.
Error to Kent Circuit.
The information in this case alleged that the respondent, on September 29, 1874, “at the township of Paris in the county aforesaid, a certain harness of the value of fifty dollars, of the personal property of one Edwin B. 'Wilson,, then and there being found, feloniously, willfully and mali-ciouly, did then and there injure and destroy, by then and there cutting the lines and martingales of said harness, and. taking the rings from said martingales, contrary to the statute,” etc. It was objected that this information did not sufficiently allege the amount of injury or damage done, so as to show that the case was not one within the exclusive jurisdiction of a justice of the peace to try and determine.
John McNamara, for plaintiff in error.
A. J. Smith, Attorney General, for the People.

Opinion:
Pee, Oueiam:
We think the information in this case is a good information for the malicious destruction of personal property of the value of fifty dollars. There was consequently no error in giving judgment upon it.
Judgment affirmed.