Rivers v. The State
Citation | 42 N.E. 1021,144 Ind. 16 |
Decision Date | 18 February 1896 |
Docket Number | 17,614 |
Parties | Rivers v. The State |
Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
From the Greene Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
J. E Lamb and J. T. Beasley, for appellant.
W. A Ketcham, Attorney-General, for State.
The appellant was prosecuted by affidavit and information charging him in the first count thereof with burglary and in the second grand larceny.
On motion the State was compelled to elect on which count she would prosecute, and it elected to proceed under the second. No reason has been suggested for this order, nor have we discovered any.
The appellant pleaded not guilty. A trial of the issue thus formed resulted in a verdict of guilty of grand larceny and fixing the punishment at ten years imprisonment in the State's prison, a fine of $ 1,000 and disfranchisement for ten years. The court rendered judgment against defendant on the verdict over his motion for a new trial.
The error assigned calls in question the ruling refusing a new trial and the sufficiency of the facts stated in the second count of the affidavit and information to constitute a public offense.
The only ground relied on in the motion for a new trial is the overruling of appellant's motion for a continuance. But there is no showing in the transcript anywhere that appellant's bill of exceptions was ever filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court without which it is no part of the record. Armstrong v. Dunn, 143 Ind. 433, 41 N.E. 540; Stewart v. White, 113 Ind. 505, 16 N.E. 186; Drake v. State, (Ind.) 145 Ind. 210, 41 N.E. 799; Smith v. State, 143 Ind. 685, 42 N.E. 913.
Therefore no question is presented as to the ruling refusing a continuance.
The second count in the affidavit and information is as follows:
State of Indiana, Greene County.
The first objection is that the affidavit and information do not contain the title of the cause and the name of the court as required by the criminal code. R. S. 1894, section 1800, (R. S. 1891, section 1731).
That is required by the section cited, but section 1825, R. S. 1894, (R. S. 1881, section 1756), provides that: "No indictment or information shall be deemed invalid, nor shall the same be set aside or quashed, * * * or in any manner affected, for any of the following defects:
The defects mentioned fall within the purview of the provision last quoted and are cured thereby. It is next objected that in the body of the affidavit it is not charged that the offense...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bartley v. State
... ... is very evident, was made a part thereof by reference had ... thereto in the third count of the information. This doctrine ... was recognized and applied, with respect to a criminal ... complaint before a justice of the peace, in Rema v ... State , 52 Neb. 375, 72 N.W. 474. (See Rivers v ... State , 144 Ind. 16, 42 N.E. 1021; State v ... Assmann , 46 S.C. 554, 24 S.E. 673.) Moreover, the third ... count of the information with sufficient particularity ... designates the county where the offense charged was ... committed, when read in connection with the first count of ... ...
-
Bartley v. State
...with respect to a criminal complaint before a justice of the peace, in Rema v. State, 52 Neb.375, 72 N. W. 474. See Rivers v. State, 144 Ind. 16, 42 N. E. 1021;State v. Assmann, 46 S. C. 554, 24 S. E. 673. Moreover, the third count of the information with sufficient particularity designates......
-
Walker v. State
...is material and due diligence shown, it is an abuse of discretion to refuse the continuance. 99 Ark. 394; 71 Ark. 180; 60 Ark. 564; 144 Ind. 16; 50 Ark. 161; 135 Ind. 2. The instruction given by the court on its own motion goes beyond the statute, Kirby's Dig. § 1765, on which it is based, ......
- Rivers v. State