State v. Charlesworth

• Decision Date: 10 January 1933
• Docket Number: 141 Or. 290
• Citation: State v. Charlesworth, 141 Or. 290, 17 P.2d 1104 (Or. 1933)
• Parties: STATE v. CHARLESWORTH.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

17 P.2d 1104

STATE v. CHARLESWORTH.

141 Or. 290

Supreme Court of Oregon

January 10, 1933

In Bank.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; James P. Stapleton Judge.

On petition for rehearing.

Petition denied.

For former opinion, see16 P.2d 1116.

Barnett H. Goldstein, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (Lotus L Langley, Dist. Atty., of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.

Jay H Stockman and John R. Latourette, both of Portland (O. P Coshow and John F. Conway, both of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.

BELT, J.

It is charged that error was committed in holding there was no evidence of the entry of an order of suspension, since all of the evidence was not certified for review and error cannot be presumed.Referring to the bill of exceptions, we find the recital therein that "said testimony as set forth in said partial transcript therein fully sets forth the testimony relative to the subjects herein presented."From this recital we may reasonably assume that the evidence not included in the certified transcript was not material or relevant to the question as to whether there had been an order of suspension entered.

It is next argued that no order of suspension was necessary and that the letter of the corporation commissioner to the defendant was sufficient.This contention was answered to our satisfaction in the original opinion.Repetition would serve no good purpose.

Finally it is urged that this court considered a question not presented in the trial court.While the objections were not...