State v. Ramstad
Decision Date | 09 January 1925 |
Docket Number | 18603. |
Parties | STATE v. RAMSTAD. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Bell, Judge.
J. A Ramstad was charged with the crime of multilating a record appertaining to his office as County Treasurer. From an order sustaining a demurrer to information and dismissing the action, the State appeals, and the defendant cross-appeals from that part of the judgment dismissing the action without prejudice, and from an order overruling his demurrer on other grounds. Judgment sustaining the demurrer reversed; in other respects, affirmed.
C. T Roscoe and John C. Richards, both of Everett, Or., for the state.
O. T Webb, W. A. Johnson, and Coleman & Fogarty, all of Everett, for respondent.
The respondent is charged by information with the crime of mutilating a record appertaining to his office as county treasurer; the charging part of the information being as follows:
The respondent demurred to the information on all the statutory grounds. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that the information does not substantially comply with the statute of the state of Washington, dismissed the action without prejudice, and overruled the demurrer on the other grounds. The appellant appeals from the order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action. Respondent appeals from that part of the judgment dismissing the action without prejudice, and from the order overruling the demurrer of respondent on the other grounds.
It is the contention of respondent that more than one crime is charged; that the facts charged do not constitute a crime and that the information contains matter which if true would constitute a legal bar to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jackson v. Mitsui & Co.
... ... We have ... held that the rights, duties, and obligations of the ... steamship company in a case brought in the state court are ... governed by the rules and principles of the admiralty law ... Heino v. Libby, McNeill & Libby, 116 Wash. 148, 205 ... ...
-
State v. Reese
...a charge may include elements which are not subject to attack. State v. Miller, 71 Wash.2d 143, 426 P.2d 986 (1967); State v. Ramstad, 132 Wash. 406, 232 P. 349 (1925). The word 'take' is one of common usage and enjoys a commonly recognized meaning among people of common intelligence. State......
-
State v. Miller
...the gun does not need to be established. See RCW 10.37.056(4); State v. Stevens, 41 Wash.2d 694, 251 P.2d 163 (1952); State v. Ramstad, 132 Wash. 406, 232 P. 349 (1925). There was no necessity to introduce the gun in Finding no merit in any of the contentions urged by the defendant, as appe......