Bartley v. State

Decision Date03 January 1898
Docket Number9347
PartiesJOSEPH S. BARTLEY v. STATE OF NEBRASKA
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

ERROR to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before BAKER, J. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Charles O. Whedon and T. J. Mahoney, for plaintiff in error:

The warrant under which the arrest was made was invalid and the information should have been quashed. (Rafferty v People, 69 Ill. 111; Garcia v. Sanders, 35 S.W. 52.)

The plea in abatement should have been sustained on the ground that another criminal action charging defendant with the same offense was pending in another county. (State v. North Lincoln S. R. Co., 34 Neb. 634; Monroe v. Reid, 46 Neb. 331; Gamsby v. Ray, 52 N.H. 513; Commonwealth v. Churchill, 5 Mass. 174; Coaldale Brick & Tile Co. v. Southern Construction Co., 19 So Rep. [Ky.] 45; Parker v. Colcord, 2 N.H. 36; Demond v. Crary, 1 F. 480; Curtis v. Piedmont Lumber, Ranch & Mining Co., 13 S.E. [N. Car.] 944.)

The information fails to allege that the warrant was lawfully issued or that it was of any value, and is therefore insufficient. (State v. Babcock, 22 Neb. 38; State v. Moore, 37 Neb. 507.)

The information is defective in failing to allege that the warrant was issued upon a proper voucher. (State v Moore, 36 Neb. 579; Moore v. Garneau, 39 Neb. 511.)

The count upon which defendant was convicted does not mention the county wherein the crime was alleged to have been committed and the count naming the county was abandoned. The state and county are mentioned in the caption, but the caption is no part of the information. The information is therefore insufficient, and will not support a conviction. (People v. Jewett, 3 Wend. [N. Y.] 319; State v. McCarty, 54 Am. Dec. [Wis.] 150; Commonwealth v. Stone, 3 Gray [Mass.] 453; Rose v. State, 1 Ala. 28; State v. Freeman, 21 Mo. 481; Mitchell v. State, 8 Yerg. [Tenn.] 514; English v. State, 4 Tex. 125; Allen v. State, 5 Wis. 329; State v. Emmett, 23 Wis. 632; McCoy v. State, 22 Neb. 418.)

An information must charge explicitly all that is essential to constitute an offense and cannot be aided by intendment. (Smith v. State, 21 Neb. 552; Commonwealth v. Smart, 6 Gray [Mass.] 15.)

Whatever is to be proven must be pleaded in the information. (State v. Hebel, 72 Ind. 361; State v. Hayes, 78 Mo. 307.)

The manner in which the money was used should have been stated for the purpose of showing whether the use was illegal. The charge that defendant converted the money to his own use was a legal conclusion rather than a statement of fact. (State v. Brandt, 41 Ia. 593; State v. Parsons, 54 Ia. 405; Hoyt v. State, 50 Ga. 313.)

No demand is alleged in the information, and for that reason it fails to show an improper neglect or refusal to pay. (State v. Munch, 22 Minn. 67; Bolln v. State, 51 Neb. 581.)

The indictment contained several counts for the same act and the prosecuting attorney should have been compelled to elect. (State v. Lawrence, 19 Neb. 307; Aiken v. State, 41 Neb. 263; Blodgett v. State, 50 Neb. 121.)

Challenges to jurors having opinions as to defendant's guilt should have been sustained. (Curry v. State, 4 Neb. 545; Carroll v. State, 5 Neb. 31; Olive v. State, 11 Neb. 1; Cowan v. State, 22 Neb. 519; Miller v. State, 29 Neb. 437; Owens v. State, 32 Neb. 167.)

The misconduct of the prosecuting attorney in referring, in presence of jurors, to attempts at bribery is ground for reversal. (Thompson v. People, 4 Neb. 531.)

References to error in the conduct of the trial judge in asking questions and in making remarks during the trial: State v. Harkin, 7 Nev. 377; State v. Ah Tong, 7 Nev. 148; Hudson v. Hudson, 16 S.E. 349 [Ga.]; Fager v. State, 22 Neb. 340; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Archer, 46 Neb. 914.

The evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict against defendant, and the motion to direct a verdict in his favor was erroneously overruled. (State v. McFetridge, 84 Wis. 473; State v. Hill, 47 Neb. 456; Suydan v. Merrick County, 19 Neb. 159; Miller v. Wheeler, 33 Neb. 765; Miller v. State, 16 Neb. 179; Commonwealth v. Shepard, 83 Mass. 575; Hamilton v. State, 60 Ind. 193; Pryor v. Commonwealth, 2 Dana [Ky.] 298; Garner v. State, 5 Yerg. [Tenn.] 160; Thalheim v. State, 20 So. Rep. [Fla.] 938; Commonwealth v. Merrifield, 4 Met. [Mass.] 468; Lewis v. State, 28 Tex.App. 140; Commonwealth v. Howe, 132 Mass. 250; Carr v. State, 16 So. Rep. [Ala.] 155; Territory v. Marinez, 44 P. 1089 [Ariz.]; Queen v. Brady, 26 U. Can. Q. B. 13; Tucker v. State, 16 Ala. 670; Lindsay v. State, 19 Ala. 560; State v. Copp, 15 N.H. 212; State v. McDonald, 24 P. 628 [Mont.]; Turley v. State, 3 Humph. [Tenn.] 323; Jordt v. State, 31 Tex. 571; Banks v. State, 28 Tex. 644; Johnson v. State, 11 O. St. 324.)

The state treasurer's bond, not having been approved within the time fixed by statute, was erroneously admitted in evidence. (State v. Lansing, 46 Neb. 514.)

The treasury warrant introduced in evidence was different from that copied in the information and should have been excluded. (State v. Owen, 73 Mo. 440; Sharley v. State, 54 Ind. 168; Haslip v. State, 10 Neb. 590; Prehm v. State, 22 Neb. 676; Williams v. People, 101 Ill. 382.)

The depository bond of the Omaha National Bank was erroneously admitted in evidence. It was not executed according to the requirements of statute. (Richardson v. Woodruff, 20 Neb. 137; Reed v. Merriam, 15 Neb. 325; Sutton v. Stone, 4 Neb. 319; Hendrix v. Boggs, 15 Neb. 469; Baldwin v. Merriam, 16 Neb. 199; Shelley v. Towle, 16 Neb. 194; Sullivan v. Merriam, 16 Neb. 157; Seaman v. Thompson, 16 Neb. 546; Bendexen v. Fenton, 21 Neb. 184; Gue v. Jones, 25 Neb. 634; Adler v. Green, 18 W.Va. 201; Easton v. Ormsby, 27 A. [R. I.] 218; Williams v. State, 6 L. R. A. [Fla.] 821; Chilton v. People, 66 Ill. 501.)

Because the jury did not ascertain and declare in their verdict the value of the property embezzled, the court had no authority to render a judgment. (Armstrong v. State, 21 O. St. 357; Highland v. People, 1 Scam. [Ill.] 391; Sawyer v. People, 3 Gil. [Ill.] 54; Tobin v. People, 104 Ill. 565; Thompson v. People, 125 Ill. 256; Shines v. State, 42 Miss. 331; Ray v. State, 1 G. Greene [Ia.] 316; State v. Redman, 17 Ia. 329; Locke v. State, 32 N.H. 106; McCoy v. State, 22 Neb. 418; McCormick v. State, 42 Neb. 866; Fox v. Phelps, 17 Wend. [N. Y.] 400; State v. Doepke, 5 Mo.App. 590; Cannon v. State, 18 Tex.App. 172.)

The seventeenth instruction was erroneous because it gave undue prominence to the testimony of one class of witnesses. (Markel v. Swobe, 11 Neb. 213; Kersenbrock v. Martin, 12 Neb. 376; City of Lincoln v. Beckman, 23 Neb. 677; First Nat. Bank of Denver v. Lowrey, 36 Neb. 290; Rising v. Nash, 48 Neb. 597.)

By the twenty-first instruction the jury was told that a reasonable doubt must be one arising from a candid and impartial investigation of all the evidence in the case. This is not a correct statement of the law. A doubt may arise from want of evidence. (Carr v. State, 23 Neb. 749; Cowan v. State, 22 Neb. 519; Childs v. State, 34 Neb. 236; Garrison v. People, 6 Neb. 274; Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33.)

C. J. Smyth, Attorney General, and Ed P. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, for the state:

The warrant of arrest contained a sufficient recital of the substance of the offense. (State v. Hallback, 18 S.E. [S. Car.] 919; Gay v. De Werff, 17 Ill.App. 417; Murphey v. State, 55 Ala. 252; Rhodes v. King, 52 Ala. 272; Jennings v. State, 13 Kan. 80.)

If the warrant of arrest was defective accused should have moved to quash it before proceeding further. He waived any defect in the warrant. (Redmond v. State, 12 Kan. 138; Alderman v. State, 24 Neb. 97; State v. Downs, 8 Ind. 42.)

The pendency of an information in one court is no ground for a plea in abatement to another information in the same court, or another court of concurrent jurisdiction, for the same cause. (Commonwealth v. Drew, 3 Cush. [Mass.] 282; Hardin v. State, 22 Ind. 349; Commonwealth v. Murphy, 11 Cush. [Mass.] 472; Commonwealth v. Berry, 5 Gray [Mass.] 93; O'Meara v. State, 17 O. St. 87; Smith v. Commonwealth, 104 Pa. St. 339; Eldridge v. State, 9 So. Rep. [Fla.] 448; Commonwealth v. Cody, 42 N.E. 575 [Mass.].)

The reference in the third count of the information to the county already named in the first count and in the caption sufficiently designated the county wherein the offense was committed, though a conviction under the first count was abandoned. (Rema v. State, 52 Neb. 375; Smith v. State, 21 Neb. 552; Moore v. Fedewa, 13 Neb. 379; Alderman v. State, 24 Neb. 97; Mount v. State, 14 O. 295; State v. McKee, 1 Bailey [S. Car.] 651; United States v. Farring, 4 Cranch [U. S. C. C.] 465; United States v. Shoemaker, 2 McLain [U. S.] 114; Reynolds v. State, 3 Kelly [Ga.] 53; Commonwealth v. Wade, 17 Pick. [Mass.] 395; Evans v. State, 24 O. St. 209; Fisk v. State, 9 Neb. 63; Boles v. State, 13 Tex.App. 650; Hutto v. State, 7 Tex.App. 44; Wills v. State, 8 Mo. 45; Commonwealth v. Clapp, 16 Gray [Mass.] 237; Phillips v. Fielding, 2 H. Bl. [Eng.] 131; Rex v. Dent, 1 C. & K. [Eng.] 249; United States v. Hendric, 2 Sawyer [U. S.] 477; State v. Nelson, 29 Me. 329; State v. McAllister, 26 Me. 374.)

The information alleges all the statutory ingredients of the offense charged, and the objection that it does not state the facts showing the alleged conversion is without merit. (Whitman v. State, 17 Neb. 224; Smith v. State, 4 Neb. 277; Wagner v. State, 43 Neb. 5; Hodgkins v. State, 36 Neb. 160; State v. Jamison, 74 Ia. 602; Claassen v. United States, 142 U.S. 140; Hoyt v. State, 50 Ga. 313; Gibbs v. State, 41 Tex. 491; Reed v. McRill, 41 Neb. 207; Sanford v. Jensen, 49 Neb. 766.)

Before resting its case the state elected as to counts. There was therefore no prejudicial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Henry County v. Salmon
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1907
    ... ... Emstein, 5 Mo.App. 78. The liability of a surety cannot ... be extended by implication beyond the plain terms of his ... contract. State ex rel. v. Sandusky, 46 Mo. 377; ... Leavel v. Porter, 52 Mo. 632; Erath v ... Allen, 55 Mo.App. 107; State ex rel. v. Weeks, ... 92 ... National City Bank, 45 N.Y. 735; American Exchange ... National Bank v. Gregg, 138 Ill. 596; Bank v ... Burkhart, 100 U.S. 686; Bartley v. State ... (Neb.), 73 N.W. 744; National Bank v. Burns, 68 ... Ala. 267. And this is true notwithstanding the bank was ... insolvent. The ... ...
  • Bartley v. State
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1898
  • Security Nat. Bank of Sioux City, Iowa, v. Old Nat. Bank of Battle Creek, Mich.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 22, 1917
    ... ... checks on the Security Bank in payment of some of those ... notes, to wit: Its check for $943.15, payable to the order of ... the Iowa State Savings Bank, in payment of 1 such note; its ... [241 F. 5] ... check for $3,424.63, payable to the order of the Northwestern ... National Bank, ... 7), 54 A. 480; Nat. Bank v. Am. Ex ... Bank (151 Mo ... [241 F. 12] ... 320), ... 52 S.W. 265 (74 Am.St.Rep. 527); Bartley v. State, ... 53 Neb. 310 (73 N.W. 744) ... 'In ... the present case no special agreement between the parties to ... the contrary of ... ...
  • Thomson v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1913
    ... ... ascertain and declare such value, the verdict is ... insufficient. (Armstrong v. State, 21 O. St. 357; ... Holmes v. State, 58 Neb. 297, 78 N.W. 641; McCoy ... v. State, 22 Neb. 418, 35 N.W. 202; Fisher v ... State, 52 Neb. 531, 72 N.W. 954; Bartley v ... State, 53 Neb. 310.) Horse stealing is larceny, and the ... language of Section 6252 is clearly broad enough to embrace ... that offense. Defendant's motion for a directed verdict ... in his favor should have been sustained. A criminal charge ... must be proved as laid, and all ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT