State v. McIntosh

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtGIVEN
Citation109 Iowa 209,80 N.W. 349
Decision Date10 October 1899
PartiesSTATE v. MCINTOSH ET AL.

109 Iowa 209
80 N.W. 349

STATE
v.
MCINTOSH ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 10, 1899.


Appeal from district court, Madison county; James D. Gamble, Judge.

The defendants were jointly charged by indictment with the crime of conspiring and confederating together to defraud and cheat, by false pretenses and representations, the counties of Madison, Dallas, Guthrie, Polk, Marion, Page, Mills, Ringgold, and other counties in the state of Iowa. The appellant, Thomas Jefferson, was separately tried, and a verdict of guilty returned against him, upon which the court rendered judgment of imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of two years and six months, from which judgment the defendant Thomas Jefferson appeals. Affirmed.

[80 N.W. 350]

Argo & Middlekauff, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., for the State.


GIVEN, J.

1. It appears that in impaneling the jury, after exhausting the regular panel, when the clerk was about to proceed to draw from the tales box, the court directed as follows: “The Court: One of the jurors summoned as talesmen in the last panel issued, appearing and offering sufficient excuse,--reason for excuse,--was by the court excused; and it appearing to the court that the other person named in the venire drawn to serve as a talesman is not in the city, but is in the country, and will not return until noon, the court, on its own motion, directs the clerk to proceed and draw from the talesmen's box the names of two persons to serve as talesmen on the trial in this case, omitting the names of any that he knows to be exempt from jury service, or any that may be absent from the territory,”--to which order and ruling the defendant at the time excepted. Appellant complains of this action of the court. Such action is fully authorized by section 349 of the Code, and that section was strictly pursued in this instance, except that the court directed the clerk to omit the names of any whom he knew to be exempt from jury service, while the language of the statute is that the court may direct the clerk to reject “those known to be unable to serve.” It is true that a person exempt may be qualified and able to serve, but it does not appear in this case that any prejudice resulted to the defendant from the order of the court. So far as appears, he did not exhaust his challenges, and the jurors by whom he was tried were legally qualified in all respects to sit in the case. It does not appear that the defendant took exceptions to any member of the jury nor to the jury as a whole. An acceptance of the jury was a waiver of all exceptions thereto, unless it might be as to legal qualifications. State v. Groome, 10 Iowa, 308;State v. Pickett, 103 Iowa, 714, 73 N. W. 346.

2. Appellant presents several exceptions to rulings of the court in taking the evidence. To understand these, we will state briefly the theory of the prosecution, as indicated in the charge and in the evidence. It appears that, in the fall and early winter of 1897, these defendants were camped on one of the rivers of Warren county, some of them representing themselves to be engaged in the business of hunting and trapping wolves. The defendant and his wife, then passing by the name of Teller, were camped six or eight rods from the other defendants. About November 1st defendant McIntosh filed a claim with the auditor of Madison county for $30 for six wolves killed in that county, the defendant Grosvenor and wife...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • State v. Manning
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 16, 1910
    ...conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence is fundamental. State v. Sterling, 34 Iowa, 443;State v. McIntosh, 109 Iowa, 209, 80 N. W. 349. But it is said that the italicized portion of the instruction quoted [128 N.W. 347]is erroneous for the reason that it permits the jury to......
  • State v. Hartman, No. 40360.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 24, 1931
    ...is a conspiracy. It may be established by circumstantial evidence. State v. Sterling, 34 Iowa, 443;State v. McIntosh, 109 Iowa, 209, 80 N. W. 349. In State v. Manning, 149 Iowa, 205, 128 N. W. 345, 347, this court said: “Neither the nature nor the existence of a conspiracy can be establishe......
  • State v. Curtis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 16, 1916
    ...is within the discretion of the court. (6 Am. Dig., Dec. Ed., 569; People v. Bunkers, 2 Cal.App. 197, 84 P. 364, 370; State v. McIntosh, 109 Iowa 209, 80 N.W. 349.) The felony with which the defendant was charged was the presentment of a false claim, and the receipt of money thereon is in n......
  • Moss v. Appanoose Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 14, 1899
    ...and, when that is done, a material violation of the law in the matter of drawing the talesmen is not shown. See State v. McIntosh (Iowa) 80 N. W. 349;State v. Minor. 106 Iowa, 642, 77 N. W. 330. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.GRANGER, J., not...
4 cases
  • State v. Manning
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 16, 1910
    ...conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence is fundamental. State v. Sterling, 34 Iowa, 443;State v. McIntosh, 109 Iowa, 209, 80 N. W. 349. But it is said that the italicized portion of the instruction quoted [128 N.W. 347]is erroneous for the reason that it permits the jury to......
  • State v. Hartman, No. 40360.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 24, 1931
    ...is a conspiracy. It may be established by circumstantial evidence. State v. Sterling, 34 Iowa, 443;State v. McIntosh, 109 Iowa, 209, 80 N. W. 349. In State v. Manning, 149 Iowa, 205, 128 N. W. 345, 347, this court said: “Neither the nature nor the existence of a conspiracy can be establishe......
  • State v. Curtis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 16, 1916
    ...is within the discretion of the court. (6 Am. Dig., Dec. Ed., 569; People v. Bunkers, 2 Cal.App. 197, 84 P. 364, 370; State v. McIntosh, 109 Iowa 209, 80 N.W. 349.) The felony with which the defendant was charged was the presentment of a false claim, and the receipt of money thereon is in n......
  • Moss v. Appanoose Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 14, 1899
    ...and, when that is done, a material violation of the law in the matter of drawing the talesmen is not shown. See State v. McIntosh (Iowa) 80 N. W. 349;State v. Minor. 106 Iowa, 642, 77 N. W. 330. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.GRANGER, J., not...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT