Gilmore v. State
| Decision Date | 14 February 1912 |
| Docket Number | 22,019 |
| Citation | 97 N.E. 422,177 Ind. 148 |
| Parties | Gilmore v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Pike Circuit Court; John L. Bretz, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Albert Gilmore. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. W. Wilson and J. W. Brumfield, for appellant.
Thomas M. Honan, Attorney-General, Thomas H. Branaman, Edwin Corr, and James E. McCullough, for the State.
Appellant, a druggist, was tried and convicted of the offense of selling one quart of whisky, in violation of law. The only errors assigned call in question the action of the court in overruling (1) "the motion to quash each count of the indictment, and (2) the motion for a new trial."
When a motion to quash an indictment is overruled by a court in this State, it is settled that unless said motion states one or more of the grounds for quashing an indictment specified in § 2065 Burns 1908, Acts 1905 p. 584, no question as to the correctness of such ruling of the court can be presented on appeal. Scott v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 382, 96 N.E. 125; Hawks v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 602, 96 N.E. 593.
The record in this case does not show that any ground was assigned in the motion to quash the indictment, and for this reason no question as to the correctness of the action of the court in overruling said motion is presented by the record.
The Attorney-General insists that no question is presented as to the action of the court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, for the reason that "appellant has not set out said motion or the substance thereof in his brief as required by clause five of rule 2" of this court.
It has uniformly been held that if appellant does not set out in his brief the motion for a new trial or the substance thereof, or grounds assigned therefor, relied on for reversal, no question as to the correctness of the court's action in overruling said motion is presented. Scott v. State, supra, and cases cited. See, also, Hawks v. State, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Underhill v. State
...the motion for a new trial is not set out in the brief of appellant, as required by the rules of this court, and cites Gilmore v. State (1912) 177 Ind. 148, 97 N. E. 422, where this court says: “It has uniformly been held that if appellant does not set out in his brief the motion for a new ......
-
Underhill v. State
... ... State, supra ... [185 ... Ind. 590] Appellee contends that the first assignment of ... error presents no question for the reason that the motion for ... a new trial is not set out in the brief of appellant as ... required by the rules of this court and sites ... Gilmore v. State (1911), 177 Ind. 148, 97 ... N.E. 422, where this court says: "It has uniformly been ... held that if appellant does not set out in his brief the ... motion for a new trial or the substance thereof, or grounds ... assigned therefor, relied on for reversal, no question as to ... the ... ...
-
Ward v. State
... ... court, and no question as to the correctness of the ... court's ruling on the motion to quash is presented ... Scott v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 382, 96 ... N.E. 125; Hawks v. State (1911), 176 Ind ... 602, 96 N.E. 593; Barnett v. State (1912), ... 177 Ind. 461, 97 N.E. 530; Gilmore" v. State ... (1912), 177 Ind. 148, 97 N.E. 422; Leach v ... State (1912), 177 Ind. 234, 97 N.E. 792; ... Blocher v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 356, 98 ... N.E. 118. Moreover, nowhere in appellant's brief is any ... defect in the affidavit pointed out and it shows none on its ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Mitchell v. State
... ... motion for a new trial are not presented for review on ... appeal, where neither the motion for new trial nor its ... substance is set out in appellant's brief, as [201 Ind ... 396] required by the rules of the Supreme Court. See Rule 22 ... of Supreme Court, clause 5; Gilmore v ... State (1912), 177 Ind. 148, 97 N.E. 422; ... Briles v. State, ... ...