Stipes v. State
| Decision Date | 05 December 1856 |
| Citation | 8 Ind. 257 |
| Parties | Stipes v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Allen Court of Common Pleas.
The judgment is affirmed with costs.
W March, for appellant.
J. W Gordon, for State.
OPINION
This was a prosecution commenced in June, 1854, before the mayor of the city of Fort Wayne, for keeping a house where spirituous liquors were sold in quantities less than a gallon, to be drank, etc., without license.
Trial fine, and appeal to the Common Pleas.The mayor's record says a bond was filed and approved.
At the July term, 1855, of the Common Pleas, the appeal was dismissed on the motion of the prosecuting attorney, on the ground that neither bond nor recognizance could be found either in the office of the mayor, or on the files of the Court.
We think the appeal rightly dismissed in ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
11 cases
-
Southern Indiana Railway Company v. Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company
... ... 588. The description of the ... land, as set forth in the publication, was not insufficient ... because it did not in terms state that the land was in Owen ... county, Indiana. The description showed the congressional ... township and range, so that land of that description ... ...
-
Southern Indiana Ry. Co. v. Indianapolis & L. Ry. Co.
...a distinct effort to secure greater certainty. Assignments of error constitute the complaint on appeal, and, as was said in Hollingsworth v. State, 8 Ind. 257, 258: “It is the assignment of errors which informs the appellee what he is called upon to answer.” The assignments of error are not......
-
Smythe v. Boswell
... ... jurisdiction from the Constitution and not from the ... Legislature. Kuntz v. Sumption, ante, p. 1; ... Little v. State, 90 Ind. 338 (46 Am. Rep ... 224); Houston v. Williams, 13 Cal. 24 ... This ... fundamental principle leads, as we are ... ...
-
Flatter v. State
...etc., Co. v. Watkins, 157 Ind. 600, 62 N. E. 443;Beggs v. State, 122 Ind. 54, 23 N. E. 693; Henderson v. Halliday, 10 Ind. 24; Hollingsworth v. State, 8 Ind. 257. True we have cases in which it is held that an appeal in a criminal action is taken by the service of notice as required by stat......
Get Started for Free