State v. Snure

• Decision Date: 09 May 1882
• Citation: 12 N.W. 347,29 Minn. 132
• Parties: State of Minnesota v. William Snure
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

12 N.W. 347

29 Minn. 132

State of Minnesota v. William Snure

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 9, 1882

The defendant was arrested and held for trial by a justice of the peace on the following complaint:

"Franzesha Gissel, of said county, being first duly sworn and examined on oath by the undersigned, E. C. Huntington, one of the justices of the peace of said county, on her oath complains and says that on the 16th day of April, 1881, at the town of Southbrook, in said county, she was delivered of as follows a female child, which is a bastard, and that William Snure of said county, is father of said child.

"Wherefore the affiant prays that William Snure may be arrested and brought before this court to answer her said complaint."

The return of the justice had no title of the case, but the certificate was that it contained "all the papers in the case of the State of Minnesota vs. Wm. Snure."

The defendant was tried in the district court for Cottonwood county, Severance, J., presiding. The jury returned the following verdict: [Title.] "We, the jury in the above-entitled case, find the defendant guilty," which was signed by their foreman. A new trial was refused; and defendant appealed.

Order affirmed.

Emory Clark, for appellant.

A. D Perkins, for the State.

OPINION

Gilfillan, C. J,

The complaint in this case is very nearly in the language of the statute. It states, at any rate, all the facts which the statute seems to contemplate as necessary. Gen. St. 1878, c. 17, § 1. The allegation that the child "is a bastard" implies that it is alive at the time of making the complaint. The transcript of the justice's docket returned to the district court shows proper proceedings had before him, and their nature, full. The omission to formally entitle the proceeding or action in the docket (who were the parties appearing therein) was at most only an irregularity, which could not possibly prejudice or mislead any one, and should be disregarded. The same is the case with the form of the verdict rendered. No one could misunderstand what the jury intended by it, nor to what case it related.

None of the questions asked of complainant was obnoxious to the objections made. The question, "Was this child begotten at the intercourse in July?" did not, as the case stood when it was asked, call for an opinion, but for a fact that might well be within her knowledge. Thus, if that was the only act of intercourse within the time when the child must, as shown by the time of its birth, have been conceived, she would certainly know as a fact that it was begotten on that occasion.

The point that the county attorney was permitted,...