Madden v. State

• Decision Date: 25 May 1897
• Parties: MADDEN v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

148 Ind. 183
47 N.E. 220

MADDEN
v.
STATE.¹

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 25, 1897.

Appeal from circuit court, St. Joseph county; George Ford, Special Judge.

Thomas Madden appeals from a conviction of grand larceny. Affirmed.

Talbot & Talbot, for appellant. W.A.Ketcham, Atty. Gen., and Thos. W. Slick, Pros. Atty., for the State.

McCABE, C. J.

The appellant was convicted of grand larceny on an indictment charging him with grand larceny, burglary, and receiving stolen goods; the jury fixing his punishment at $5 fine and three years in the penitentiary. The trial court overruled his motion for a new trial, which ruling is called in question by his assignment of errors. The motion, among other things, assigned as reason therefor that the court, over appellant's objection, permitted the state to prove that, some months prior, appellant had been arrested in St. Joseph county on another charge of grand larceny, and the court, after a proper request from appellant that all instructions be in writing, over appellant's objection gave an oral instruction.

We are met on behalf of the state by an objection to the consideration of these questions, because it is insisted that the evidence and the matters involved in this exception are not in the record. It is claimed that there is nothing to show that the longhand manuscript was filed in the clerk's office before its incorporation in the bill of exceptions, or that it was ever filed in the clerk's office. That is true, but there is nothing to show that the original longhand manuscript was ever incorporated in the bill of exceptions; but the transcript purports to contain a transcript of the bill of exceptions, including a copy of the longhand manuscript, if it ever was incorporated in the bill of exceptions. Where the transcript does not purport to contain the original longhand manuscript, but where the bill, as here, states that it contains all the evidence given in the cause, there is no reason why such transcript should show that the longhand manuscript of the evidence and its incidents was ever filed in the clerk's office. It is sufficient if the judge certifies, as he has here, that the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence given in the cause, and the clerk certifies, as he has here, “that the above and foregoing transcript contains complete copies of all the papers and entries in said cause”; the transcript otherwise showing the filing of the bill of exceptions in said cause.

The bill of exceptions shows that at the beginning of the trial the defendant filed a written paper reading thus: “The defendant requests the court...