Epstein v. State
| Decision Date | 25 May 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 23637.,23637. |
| Citation | 127 N.E. 441,190 Ind. 693 |
| Parties | EPSTEIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; James A. Collins, Judge.
Samuel B. Epstein was convicted of having obtained money by false pretenses, and he appeals. Judgment affirmed.
Albert C. Pearson, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Ele Stansbury and A. B. Cronk, both of Indianapolis, for the State.
The appellant was convicted in the criminal court of Marion county, Ind., on an indictment charging him with having obtained money by false pretenses, and from the judgment of conviction he appeals and assigns as error:
1. That the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment.
2. That the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial.
3. That the court erred in overruling his motion in arrest of judgment.
[1] The appellant's brief does not contain a copy of the indictment, and does not state, in substance, the contents thereof, and does not contain a copy of the motion to quash, nor the substance of such motion, although it says the motion was in writing. In the absence of any statement of the substance of said indictment, or a copy thereof, and of the substance of the motion to quash, or a copy of it, in appellant's brief, such brief presents no question as to the correctness of the court's action in overruling the motion to quash the indictment. Scott v. State, 176 Ind. 382, 96 N. E. 125;Myers v. State, 171 Ind. 673, 87 N. E. 141.
[2] Appellant says the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial, but such motion is not set out in said brief, nor the substance of it stated therein. When neither the motion for a new trial nor the substance thereof is set out in appellant's brief, all questions sought to be presented thereby are waived. Tongret et al. v. Carlin, 165 Ind. 489, 75 N. E. 887;State ex rel. Biddle v. Birden, 187 Ind. 466, 119 N. E. 865;City of New Albany v. Kiefer (App.) 123 N. E. 361.
[3] Appellant also fails to set out in his brief his motion in arrest of judgment, or the substance of it. Where neither the indictment upon which the judgment is founded nor the motion in arrest is set out in appellant's brief, nor the substance of either of them stated therein, no question is presented to this court for decision. Myers v. State, 171 Ind. 673, 87 N. E. 141.
No error being made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial