State v. Kirkpatrick
| Decision Date | 20 October 1905 |
| Citation | 105 N.W. 121 |
| Parties | STATE v. KIRKPATRICK. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Mahaska County; John T. Scott, Judge.
Appeal from conviction for breaking and entering a building with intent to commit larceny. Affirmed.W. R. Nelson, O. T. Downs, and H. H. Sheriff, for appellant.
Chas. W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., Lawrence De Graff, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John N. McCoy, Co. Atty., for the State.
Errors are assigned as to rulings in the admission of evidence, but they can hardly be said to be argued. We have, however, examined the record as to each of such alleged errors and find nothing prejudicial. It would be of no possible advantage to recite the particular portions of the record which support our conclusion. Counsel for appellant in their argument rely principally upon alleged errors in the giving and refusal of instructions. No exception was taken to the instructions given. A general complaint as to the correctness of the instructions, made in a motion for a new trial, is not sufficient as the basis of an argument in this court as to their correctness. State v. Williams, 115 Iowa, 97, 88 N. W. 194. We cannot pass upon the correctness of the instructions refused, for the record does not present all the instructions given, and therefore it does not appear that the instructions marked refused were not substantially covered by those given.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burns
...was too general in its terms, for none of the claimed defects in any of the instructions were pointed out therein." And in State v. Kirkpatrick (Iowa), 105 N.W. 121, the rule is thus stated: "No exception was taken to instructions given. A general complaint as to the correctness of the inst......
-
State v. Burns
...was too general in its terms, for none of the claimed defects in any of the instructions were pointed out therein.” And in State v. Kirkpatrick, 105 N. W. 121, the rule is thus stated: “No exception was taken to the instructions given. A general complaint as to the correctness of the instru......
-
Hilliker v. Allen
... ... On the cross-examination of one of the appellant's witnesses he was permitted to state the appellant's custom as to assigning exclusive territory to local agents. Admitting, for present purposes, that the testimony was incompetent, it ... ...
-
Lamp v. Lannegan, 34620.
...more in detail. Kreuger v. Sylvester, 100 Iowa, 647, 651, 69 N. W. 1059;State v. Lyon, 176 Iowa, 171, 176, 157 N. W. 742;State v. Kirkpatrick (Iowa) 105 N. W. 121. The same matter is referred to in plaintiff's offered instruction No. 2. It is contended by appellant that the court erred in r......