Peacock v. State
| Decision Date | 29 April 1910 |
| Docket Number | 21,562 |
| Citation | 91 N.E. 597,174 Ind. 185 |
| Parties | Peacock v. The State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Newton Circuit Court; C. W. Hanley, Judge.
Prosecution by The State of Indiana against Erastus Peacock. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
George A. Williams, for appellant.
James Bingham, Attorney-General, A. G. Cavins, E. M. White and W. H. Thompson, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of wife desertion, under § 2635 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 75. His motions to quash the indictment and for a new trial were respectively overruled.
The only objection pointed out to the indictment is that it does not sufficiently charge that the desertion was felonious. The pertinent part of the indictment is as follows: "That Erastus Peacock, on November 5, 1907, at the county and state aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully and felon desert his wife, Florence Peacock, leaving her without reasonable means of support, she, said Florence Peacock, having never been guilty of adultery, or other vicious or immoral conduct." The point made against the indictment is frivolous. It is manifest that the failure of the scrivener of the indictment to write fully the word "feloniously" is a mere clerical error, and could not have harmed defendant.
The only questions made under the motion for a new trial arise upon instructions given and refused by the court, and there are no such questions properly before us, because no instructions appear in the record by bill of exceptions. Donovan v. State (1908), 170 Ind. 123, 83 N.E. 744; Williams v. State (1908), 170 Ind. 642, 85 N.E. 350; Heath v. State (1910), 173 Ind. 296, 90 N.E. 310; Lucas v. State (1910), 173 Ind. 302, 90 N.E. 305.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bader v. State
...Ind. 330; Ward v. State, 50 Ala. 120; Fuller v. State, 117 Ala. 200, 23 South. 73;Reeves v. State, 116 Ala. 481, 23 South. 28;Peacock v. State (Ind.) 91 N. E. 597;Commonwealth v. Wright, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 46, 64, 65. The exact beginning and end of the claim as set out in the affidavit are cle......
-
Bader v. State
... ... vitiate an indictment or affidavit. Gillett, Crim. Law (2d ... ed.) § 125; 22 Cyc. 292; State v ... Hedge (1855), 6 Ind. 330; Ward v ... State (1873), 50 Ala. 120; Fuller v ... State (1897), 117 Ala. 200, 23 So. 73; ... Peacock v. State (1910), 174 Ind. 185, 91 ... N.E. 597; Commonwealth v. Wright (1848), 1 ... Cush. (Mass.) 46, 64, 65. The exact beginning and end of the ... claim as set out in the affidavit are clear, and appellant ... could not have been misled nor injured by the omission of the ... quotation ... ...
-
Smith v. State
... ... State (1924), 194 Ind. 154, ... 142 N.E. 220. The instruction is not in the record by a bill ... of exceptions signed by the judge. As the requested ... instruction has not been brought into the record by a proper ... bill of exceptions, it cannot be considered on appeal ... Peacock v. State (1910), 174 Ind. 185, 91 ... N.E. 597; Tribbey v. State (1918), 189 Ind ... 205, 126 N.E. 481; McNaught v. State ... (1924), 194 Ind. 209, 142 N.E. 418 ... Instructions ... were given by the court on its own motion on the law of ... self-defense, and in the first ... ...
-
Hinkle v. State
...84 N. E. 971;Curless v. State, 172 Ind. 257, 88 N. E. 339;Heath v. State, 90 N. E. 310;Lucas v. State, 90 N. E. 305;Peacock v. State (No. 21,562, last term), 91 N. E. 597. It is charged in the motion for a new trial that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to......