DiLlon v. State

• Citation: 39 Neb. 92,57 N.W. 986
• Parties: DILLON v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 06 February 1894
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska

39 Neb. 92

57 N.W. 986

DILLON

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Feb. 6, 1894.

Syllabus by the Court.

In order to secure a review in this court of alleged errors occurring at the trial, such errors must be pointed out in a motion for a new trial, addressed to the district court, and a ruling obtained thereon.

Error to district court, Furnas county; Welty, Judge.

Jabe Dillon was convicted of an assault with intent to do great bodily injury, and brings error. Affirmed.C. C. Flansburg, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. H. Hastings, Atty. Gen., for the State.

POST, J.

At the April, 1893, term of the district court of Furnas county the plaintiff in error, Jabe Dillon, was convicted of the crime of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury, and which he now seeks to reverse by means of a petition in error addressed to this court. In his petition numerous errors are alleged, all of which refer to rulings during the trial before the district court. We find, accompanying the transcript, a paper entitled “Motion for a New Trial,” in which the grounds stated are substantially the same as those assigned in the petition in error. It does not appear, however, to have been filed in the district court, nor is there anything in the record to indicate that it was ever passed upon by that court. The settled rule is that, in order to secure a review, in this court, of alleged errors occurring at the trial, such rulings must be assigned in a motion for a new trial, addressed to the trial court, and a ruling obtained thereon. See Gibson v. Arnold, 5 Neb. 186; Simpson v. Gregg, Id. 238; Harrington v. Latta, 23 Neb. 84, 36 N. W. 364;Miller v. Antelope Co., 35 Neb. 237, 52 N. W. 1116. It follows that the petition in error must be dismissed, and the judgment of the district court affirmed.

The other judges concur.