George v. State

• Decision Date: 20 August 1884
• Citation: 20 N.W. 311,16 Neb. 318
• Parties: GEORGE v. STATE.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

16 Neb. 318

20 N.W. 311

GEORGE

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Filed August 20, 1884.

Error from Douglas county.

Redick & Redick, for plaintiff.

The Attorney General, for defendant.

COBB, C. J.

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted at the February term, 1884, of the district court of Douglas county. The indictment contained two counts: the first charging the plaintiff in error with having, on the nineteenth day of November, 1883, stolen from the person of one Louis Brown the sum of $70. The second count charges him with, at the date aforesaid, assaulting the said Louis Brown with intent to steal from the person of said Brown the sum of $70. The jury found him not guilty upon the first count, and guilty under the second count. Being sentenced to six years in the penitentiary, he brings the cause to this court on error.

There are two points insisted upon: (1) That the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, and is contrary to law; and (3) for errors of law occurring at the trial.

The second, fourth, and fifth grounds of error assigned in the petition in error are substantially abandoned in the brief, and were not insisted upon at the hearing. They will, therefore, not be further noticed, nor will the first point, further than to say that whatever might be my opinion as to whether or not the verdict is sustained by the evidence, having reached the conclusion that there must be a new trial for the causes assigned under the third head, it is deemed unadvisable to make any comment on the evidence.

On the trial the prisoner was sworn as a witness in his own behalf. Upon his cross-examination the district attorney put the following question to him: “ Question. Did you approach this girl and another girl by the name of Mamy, and a gentleman with them, these three sitting at a table down in the Tivoli garden, last August, and say to Mamy, in the hearing of this girl referred to, ‘This fellow has got money; come and get into the hack, and I will drive you out, and we will have a chance to get it, or fix him, or anything of that sort?’ ” The witness answered, “No, sir.” After the defense rested, the district attorney, on the part of the state, recalled Frankie Driscoll, a witness who had been previously sworn and examined on the part of the state, she being the person referred to in the foregoing question as “this girl,” and put the following question to her. I quote from the bill of exceptions: “ Question. Do you recollect one night last August of seeing Lon George down at the Tivoli garden? (Objected to as immaterial, and no proper rebutting testimony, and leading. ...