Lindsay v. State , No. 24589.
| Docket Nº | No. 24589. |
| Citation | 195 Ind. 333, 145 N.E. 438 |
| Case Date | November 12, 1924 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
195 Ind. 333
145 N.E. 438
LINDSAY
v.
STATE.
No. 24589.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Nov. 12, 1924.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Vigo County. John P. Jeffries, Judge.
Andrew Lindsay was convicted of unlawfully possessing a still for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Duvall & Whitaker and Gerdink & Gerdink, all of Terre Haute, for appellant.
U. S. Lesh, Atty. Gen., and O. S. Boling, of Indianapolis, for the State.
TRAVIS, J.
Appellant was convicted of the charge of unlawfully possessing a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, in violation of section 1, chapter 33, Acts 1923, and upon appeal alleges as errors:
(1) That there was no valid and constitutional law in force regarding the possession of stills for the purpose of the manufacture of intoxicating liquors.
(2) That the facts stated in the affidavit do not constitute a public offense.
(3) Error in overruling motion for a new trial.
(4) Error in overruling motion for arrest of judgment.
[1] The first assignment of error is independent of, and does not rest upon, a ruling of the trial court. An independent cause for reversal of a judgment, because of the alleged fact that there was no valid and constitutional law upon which the charge could be predicated, presents no question for review. The question of the constitutionality of the statute must first be presented to the trial court, otherwise the question may not be presented upon appeal. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Town of Wolcott (1904) 162 Ind. 399, 69 N. E. 451;Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., v. Collins (1907) 168 Ind. 467, 80 N. E. 415;Baublett v. Strickler (1921) 190 Ind. 548, 131 N. E. 1; Ewbank's Manual (2d Ed.) § 133.
[2] Under the statute the second assignment of error presents no question for decision. An independent assignment of error attacking the pleading which charges the offense, for the reason that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense, presents no error for consideration on appeal in a criminal case. Bills v. State (1918) 187 Ind. 721, 119 N. E. 465;Boos v. State (1914) 181 Ind. 562, 105 N. E. 117; Burns' 1914, §§ 341, 2231; Scherer v. State (1917) 187 Ind. 15, 116 N. E. 52.
[3] The motion for a new trial, the overruling of which by the trial court is the third assigned error, is based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding, and that the finding of guilty by the court is contrary to law.
Appellant incorporates in the transcript of the case for appeal what purports to be a bill of exception containing the evidence. Appellee makes the point that appellant did not present such bill of exception to the court for approval during the term at which the case was tried, and that leave to file the same thereafter was not asked for by appellant or permission given by the court. Purported bills of exceptions, although approved and signed by the judge of the court and then filed with the clerk and physically incorporated in the transcript, unless leave...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold v. State, No. 2--873A181
...(1973), Ind.App., 296 N.E.2d 667; Obie v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 142, 106 N.E.2d 452; Lindsay v. State (1924), 195 Page 700 Ind. 333, 145 N.E. 438; Waliski v. State (1922), 193 Ind. 232, 139 N.E. If Arnold's mutually exclusive interpretation of these two statutes be considered as limiting t......
-
Wayne Tp. v. Brown, No. 26356.
...that a title to an act is too broad, general, or that it comprehends more than is legislated upon by the act itself.” Lindsay v. State, 195 Ind. 333, 145 N. E. 438, 439. If we consider the act alone, it does not purport to be an amendment, but an original act. The subject of the act is the ......
-
Turner v. State, No. 31036
...of an indictment or affidavit cannot be challenged for the first time by an independent assignment of error. Lindsay v. State (1924), 195 Ind. 333, 145 N.E. 438; Waliski v. State (1922), 193 Ind. 232, 139 N.E. 363. The record in this case reveals that no motion to quash the indictment was e......
-
Drake v. State, No. 24652.
...The constitutionality of a statute cannot properly be presented to the Supreme Court for the first time on appeal. Lindsay v. State (1924) 195 Ind. 333, 145 N. E. 438;Atlas Securities Co. v Grove (1922) 79 Ind. App. 144, 137 N. E. 570;Dodge v. F. Cornelius (1901) 168 N. Y. 242, 61 N. E. 244......
-
Arnold v. State, No. 2--873A181
...(1973), Ind.App., 296 N.E.2d 667; Obie v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 142, 106 N.E.2d 452; Lindsay v. State (1924), 195 Page 700 Ind. 333, 145 N.E. 438; Waliski v. State (1922), 193 Ind. 232, 139 N.E. If Arnold's mutually exclusive interpretation of these two statutes be considered as limiting t......
-
Wayne Tp. v. Brown, No. 26356.
...that a title to an act is too broad, general, or that it comprehends more than is legislated upon by the act itself.” Lindsay v. State, 195 Ind. 333, 145 N. E. 438, 439. If we consider the act alone, it does not purport to be an amendment, but an original act. The subject of the act is the ......
-
Turner v. State, No. 31036
...of an indictment or affidavit cannot be challenged for the first time by an independent assignment of error. Lindsay v. State (1924), 195 Ind. 333, 145 N.E. 438; Waliski v. State (1922), 193 Ind. 232, 139 N.E. 363. The record in this case reveals that no motion to quash the indictment was e......
-
Drake v. State, No. 24652.
...The constitutionality of a statute cannot properly be presented to the Supreme Court for the first time on appeal. Lindsay v. State (1924) 195 Ind. 333, 145 N. E. 438;Atlas Securities Co. v Grove (1922) 79 Ind. App. 144, 137 N. E. 570;Dodge v. F. Cornelius (1901) 168 N. Y. 242, 61 N. E. 244......