Noland v. People
| Decision Date | 03 April 1905 |
| Citation | 80 P. 887,33 Colo. 322 |
| Parties | NOLAND v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to Boulder County Court; Junius Henderson, Judge.
Edward Noland was convicted of violating a city ordinance, and he brings error. Reversed.
Wm. B Ogden and J. R. Wolff, for plaintiff in error.
Chas M. Campbell and Richard H. Whiteley, for the People.
Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Boulder county for the violation of a city ordinance of the city of Boulder. In this case the complaint was filed on the 9th day of April 1902, and in the complaint it is charged that Edward Noland on or about the 1st day of March, 1902, violated section 3 of article 2 of an ordinance in relation to fires and the prevention thereof, Upon the trial the defendant pleaded a former acquittal, and, in proof of his plea, introduced the record of the police magistrate's court of the city of Boulder, showing that on the 1st day of March, 1902, upon the trial of a cause in which the city was plaintiff and he was the defendant, he was acquitted. The complaint upon which the defendant was tried before the police magistrate was filed on the 28th of February, 1902, and charges a violation of the same section and article of the ordinance 'by placing upon or moving a wooden building upon a certain lot within the city of Boulder, and within the fire limits of the said city of Boulder.' The ordinance under which both complaints were filed is in part as follows: The structure which the defendant is charged with having moved into the city of Boulder is an old street car that he moved up from the city of Denver. It is now utilized by the defendant as a lunchroom, and has been fitted up by him so that it will be suitable for such use.
A great many questions are presented in the briefs, but counsel rely mainly upon the fact that the magistrate at the first trial found that the defendant was not guilty because the car which he moved into the city of Boulder was not a wooden building, within the meaning of the ordinance. The magistrate who tried the case was called as a witness, but his testimony was excluded by the court upon the ground that it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tippett, 86SA3
...policy and convenience to permit a judge to be called as a witness to state the grounds upon which he decided the case. Noland v. People, 33 Colo. 322, 80 P. 887 (1905). We turn to the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct [hereinafter the Code] for guidance. The Code is designed to assure that......
-
Higgins v. Pratt
...of the District Court was rightly excluded. Fayer-weather v. Ritch, 194 U.S. 276, 306, 307, 25 S.Ct. 58, 49 L.Ed. 193;Noland v. People, 33 Colo. 322, 324, 80 P. 887;Brinkerhoff v. Home Trust & Savings Bank, 109 Kan. 700, 709, 205 P. 779;State v. Donovan, 129 N.J.L. 478, 489, 30 A.2d 421;Hin......
-
City of Canon City v. Merris
...People v. Braisted, 13 Colo.App. 532, 58 P. 796. In other cases the court has regarded the action quasi-criminal in nature. Noland v. People, 33 Colo. 322, 80 P. 887; De Weese v. People, 61 Colo. 140, 156 P. 594, L.R.A.1916E, 326. In Scott v. City and County of Denver, supra, Mr. Justice Ho......
-
Higgins v. Pratt
... ... [to Mr. Norman] he had full ... knowledge that the town of Barre had only three thousand ... eight hundred ... [316 Mass. 703] ... people ... certainly under ten thousand ... He testified ... that he did not tell Mr. Norman about that. Now, it is for ... you to say whether or not ... District Court was rightly excluded. Fayerweather v ... Ritch, 195 U.S. 276, 306-307. Noland v. People, ... 33 Colo. 322, 324. Brinkerhoff v. Home Trust & Savings ... Bank, 109 Kans. 700, 709. State v. Donovan, 129 N. J. L. 478, ... 489 ... ...