Bruce v. State
Decision Date | 05 June 1895 |
Docket Number | 17,362 |
Citation | 40 N.E. 1069,141 Ind. 464 |
Parties | Bruce v. The State |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Vigo Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed.
G. W Faris, S. R. Hamill, J. O. Piety, J. E. Piety and J. C Robinson, for appellant.
A. G Smith, Attorney-General, M. C. Hamill, Prosecuting Attorney J. Jump, J. E. Lamb, J. C. Davis and J. D. Early, for State.
The appellant was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to imprisonment in the State's prison.
The only error assigned is the overruling of the motion for a new trial.
From the record it appears that on September 22, 1893, at the September term, 1893, of the Vigo Circuit Court, judgment was rendered against the appellant.
A motion for a new trial was prayed during the term, but was not heard until February 10, 1894, when it was overruled, an appeal prayed, and sixty days given for bills of exceptions.
If this were a civil case the appeal, although somewhat dilatory, would have been properly perfected.
By section 1916, R. S. 1894 (section 1847, R. S. 1881), it is provided that:
The judgment in this case was rendered September 22, 1893; and the bills of exceptions were made out and presented to the judge April 5, 1894. It would seem clear that the bills came too late.
In Hunter v. State, 101 Ind. 406, it was held that under the foregoing statute, "The trial is terminated by the final judgment, and that the leave to file a bill must be obtained before the judgment, or at least concurrently with its entry."
In the present case, leave for additional time to file the bill was not given until February 10, 1894, long after the rendition of the judgment, and even after the term at which judgment was entered.
In Bartley v. State, 111 Ind. 358, 12 N.E 503, it was said that: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burden v. Burden
......In its present state it is wholly insufficient to constitute a cause of action or serve as a proper and valid basis for the judgment or decree which appellee seeks ......
-
Bruce v. State
...141 Ind. 46440 N.E. 1069BRUCEv.STATE.Supreme Court of Indiana.June 5, Appeal from circuit court, Vigo county; C. F. McNutt, Special Judge. Frank Bruce was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.Faris & Hamill, Piety & Piety, and Jno. C. Robinson, for appellant. A. G. Smith, Atty.......
-
Burden v. Burden
...... for, as the presumption is in favor of fair dealing, nothing. is to be taken by intendment or inference. Conant v. National State Bank, etc., 121 Ind. 323, 22 N.E. 250. . . . Misrepresentations must be concerning a material fact, and. not concerning ......