Freas v. State ex rel. Freeling, Case Number: 13758

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtLOGSDON, C.
Citation1925 OK 125,235 P. 227,109 Okla. 205
PartiesFREAS, Sheriff, v. STATE ex rel. FREELING, Atty. Gen.
Docket NumberCase Number: 13758
Decision Date17 February 1925

1925 OK 125
235 P. 227
109 Okla. 205

FREAS, Sheriff,
v.
STATE ex rel.
FREELING, Atty. Gen.

Case Number: 13758

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: February 17, 1925


Syllabus by the Court.

¶0 Where complaint is made of a paragraph of the court's instructions, this court will consider such paragraph in connection with its context, and where the offending paragraph contains a substantially correct statement of the law, and, when considered in connection with other paragraphs, could not reasonably mislead or confuse the jury, such instruction will be sustained. Neither will error be predicated on the refusal of a correct requested instruction, where the question presented is substantially covered by instructions given.

Upon an assignment of error which questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, a judgment based thereon will not be disturbed, where there is evidence in the record reasonably tending to support the verdict. This court will not weigh conflicting evidence to determine on which side lies the preponderance.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

In proceeding to remove sheriff from office, instruction that sheriff has duty to enforce criminal laws of state against violations of prohibitory liquor law and violations of gambling law, in conformity with Comp. St. 1921, §§ 1946 and 7036, was not prejudicial for failure to instruct as to correlative duties resting on other officers.

Action by the state of Oklahoma, on the relation of S. P. Freeling, Attorney General, against H. M. Freas, for removal from the office of sheriff of Osage county. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This action was commenced in the district court of Osage county on December 17, 1921, by the filing in said court of a petition setting forth six causes of action for the removal of the defendant from the office of sheriff of said county. Upon the trial thereafter had, verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff upon the second and third causes of action, all other causes of action having been withdrawn from the consideration of the jury by the instructions of the court except the fourth cause of action, and as to this there was a verdict in favor of the defendant.

The second cause of action charged willful neglect of duty on the part of the defendant in suffering and permitting gaming houses and games of chance to be operated and conducted in said county, in open violation of the law, and contrary to the lawful discharge of the duties enjoined upon the defendant as sheriff by the laws of the state of Oklahoma.

The third cause of action charged the defendant as such sheriff with willfully failing to perform his duties in the enforcement of the prohibitory law within said county and with suffering and permitting the operation and conducting of places within the county where intoxicating liquors were sold, bartered, and given away, openly and notoriously.

Defendant's answer to the second and third causes of action consisted of general denials. Upon the issues thus formed, the case was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged in the second and third counts, and upon this verdict judgment was entered removing the defendant from office. After unsuccessful motion for new trial, defendant has brought the case here by petition in error with case-made attached for review. The parties will be hereafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant, respectively, as they...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...State v. Teeters, 112 Kan. 70, 209 Pac. 818; Reeves v. Texas, 258 S.W. 577; State v. Dyson, 106 Neb. 277, 183 N.W. 298; Freas v. State, 109 Okla. 205, 235 Pac. 227; Holliday v. Fields, 210 Ky. 179, 275 S.W. 642; In re Sulzman, 125 Ohio St. 594, 183 N.E. 531; Mays v. Robertson, 172 Ark. 279,......
  • Mccasland v. Bd. of Com'Rs of Adair Cnty., Case Number: 17712
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • July 26, 1927
    ...decision, in so far as it deals with the degree of proof or the giving of instructions, obiter dictum. In the case of Freas v. State, 109 Okla. 205, 235 P. 227, an action brought for the removal from office of the sheriff of Osage county, this court approved an instruction which directed th......
  • Myers v. State, Case Number: 20107
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • June 4, 1929
    ...under section 2395, Id. We call attention to the able dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Riley. ¶34 In Freas v. State ex rel. Freeling, 109 Okla. 205, 235 P. 227, the prosecution was under the Attorney General's Act. The only procedure for a trial thereunder is that 'it shall be tried in a s......
  • Gloeckler v. Weedn, Case Number: 25487
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • October 29, 1935
    ...the verdict. This court will not weigh conflicting evidence to determine on which side lies the preponderance." Freas v. State, 109 Okla. 205, 235 P. 227. ¶10 In the case of May v. Roberts, 28 Okla. 619, 115 P. 771, In a case almost identical with the questions involved in this matter,......
4 cases
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...State v. Teeters, 112 Kan. 70, 209 Pac. 818; Reeves v. Texas, 258 S.W. 577; State v. Dyson, 106 Neb. 277, 183 N.W. 298; Freas v. State, 109 Okla. 205, 235 Pac. 227; Holliday v. Fields, 210 Ky. 179, 275 S.W. 642; In re Sulzman, 125 Ohio St. 594, 183 N.E. 531; Mays v. Robertson, 172 Ark. 279,......
  • Mccasland v. Bd. of Com'Rs of Adair Cnty., Case Number: 17712
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • July 26, 1927
    ...decision, in so far as it deals with the degree of proof or the giving of instructions, obiter dictum. In the case of Freas v. State, 109 Okla. 205, 235 P. 227, an action brought for the removal from office of the sheriff of Osage county, this court approved an instruction which directed th......
  • Myers v. State, Case Number: 20107
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • June 4, 1929
    ...under section 2395, Id. We call attention to the able dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Riley. ¶34 In Freas v. State ex rel. Freeling, 109 Okla. 205, 235 P. 227, the prosecution was under the Attorney General's Act. The only procedure for a trial thereunder is that 'it shall be tried in a s......
  • Gloeckler v. Weedn, Case Number: 25487
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • October 29, 1935
    ...the verdict. This court will not weigh conflicting evidence to determine on which side lies the preponderance." Freas v. State, 109 Okla. 205, 235 P. 227. ¶10 In the case of May v. Roberts, 28 Okla. 619, 115 P. 771, In a case almost identical with the questions involved in this matter,......

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