Taylor v. State , No. 23791.

Docket NºNo. 23791.
Citation132 N.E. 294, 191 Ind. 200
Case DateOctober 13, 1921
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

191 Ind. 200
132 N.E. 294

TAYLOR et al.
v.
STATE.

No. 23791.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 13, 1921.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; Robert Mellen, Special Judge.

William R. Taylor, Paul Taylor, and Cecil Taylor were convicted of burglary, larceny, and conspiracy to commit a felony, and they appeal. Affirmed.


William N. Harding and Omer U. Newman, both of Indianapolis, and Fred.
N. Fletcher, of Bedford, for appellants.

U. S. Lesh, Atty. Gen., and Dale F. Stansbury, of Indianapolis, for the State.


WILLOUGHBY, J.

This was an action in which the appellants, William R. Taylor, Paul Taylor, and Cecil Taylor, were charged by an indictment in three counts with burglary, larceny, and conspiracy to commit a felony. Indictment was found in the Jackson circuit court, and the cause sent to Lawrence county on change of venue for trial. Each defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The case was tried by jury, and the jury found the defendants guilty on all the counts as charged in the indictment. The court rendered judgment upon the verdict of the jury, adjudging each defendant guilty upon each count of the indictment. From such judgment, appellants appeal.

The errors relied upon for reversal are:

(1) “The court erred in overruling appellants' motion made separately and severally to quash each count of the indictment separately and severally.”

(2) “The court erred in overruling appellants' motion for a new trial, separately and severally.”

[1] In appellants' brief, under propositions, points, and authorities, the only count of the indictment discussed is the first one, which charges burglary in the second degree. It is claimed by appellants that this count does not state the offense with sufficient certainty, because it says that the appellants did break and enter into the private garage of Henry H. Holburn, thus using the word “garage,” without defining its meaning, and does not affirm that the private garage was a building. It was not necessary that the indictment should define the word “garage.” The word is well understood, and is not of doubtful meaning. The Standard Dictionary says a

[132 N.E. 295]

garage is a building for the storage of automobile vehicles. This meaning is well understood by the people among whom the word is used.

This count of the indictment conforms in every particular with the statute under which it was drawn. We think it described the offense with sufficient certainty. No objection is pointed out to the second and third counts of the indictment, and we see none. Each count of the indictment was sufficient to withstand appellants' motion to quash.

The Attorney General contends that no question is properly presented on the action of the court in overruling appellants' motion for a new trial, for the reason that there are no bills of exception in the record. It appears from appellants' brief, and from an examination of the record, that what purports to be a longhand transcript of the evidence appears in the record immediately following the index, and the clerk certifies that said longhand transcript was filed on June 28, 1920, and the judge certifies that on June 28, 1920, the defendant tendered his bill of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Freestone v. State ex rel. Advance-Rumely Co., No. 13990.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 7, 1931
    ...v. Wills (1911) 176 Ind. 631, 96 N. E. 763;Stigleman et al. v. Felter (1919) 69 Ind. App. 284, 121 N. E. 670;Taylor v. State (1921) 191 Ind. 200, 182 N. E. 294;Schoenrock v. State (1923) 193 Ind. 580, 141 N. E. 351;Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Berdon, Adm'r (1924) 195 Ind. 265, 145 N. E. 2, 1......
  • Rhodehamel v. State, No. 24792.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 10, 1927
    ...leave therefor must be given by the court at the time of the ruling on the motion for a new trial. Bass v. State, supra; Taylor v. State, 191 Ind. 200, 132 N. E. 294. [10] In Robinson v. State, supra, it is held that the certificate of the judge that the bill of exceptions was presented to ......
  • Lindsay v. State , No. 24589.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 12, 1924
    ...N. E. 234;Utterback v. State (1899) 153 Ind. 545, 55 N. E. 420;Pierson v. State (1921) 191 Ind. 206, 131 N. E. 397;Taylor v. State (1921) 191 Ind. 200, 132 N. E. 294, 295; Flanagan v. State (1922; Ind. Sup.) 137 N. E. 178;Moore v. State (1923; Ind. Sup.) 141 N. E. 638, 639;McNaught v. State......
  • Cammack v. Kentucky Home Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 17071.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 22, 1943
    ...Co. v. Miles, 1912, 177 Ind. 109, 96 N.E. 145;Stremmel v. Gaar, Scott & Co., 1911, 176 Ind. 600, 96 N.E. 703;Taylor v. State, 1921, 191 Ind. 200, 132 N.E. 294;Crouse et al. v. Crouse, 1939, 106 Ind.App. 565, 21 N.E.2d 71. Such being the law it is apparent that the evidence in the instant ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Freestone v. State ex rel. Advance-Rumely Co., No. 13990.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 7, 1931
    ...v. Wills (1911) 176 Ind. 631, 96 N. E. 763;Stigleman et al. v. Felter (1919) 69 Ind. App. 284, 121 N. E. 670;Taylor v. State (1921) 191 Ind. 200, 182 N. E. 294;Schoenrock v. State (1923) 193 Ind. 580, 141 N. E. 351;Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Berdon, Adm'r (1924) 195 Ind. 265, 145 N. E. 2, 1......
  • Rhodehamel v. State, No. 24792.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 10, 1927
    ...leave therefor must be given by the court at the time of the ruling on the motion for a new trial. Bass v. State, supra; Taylor v. State, 191 Ind. 200, 132 N. E. 294. [10] In Robinson v. State, supra, it is held that the certificate of the judge that the bill of exceptions was presented to ......
  • Lindsay v. State , No. 24589.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 12, 1924
    ...N. E. 234;Utterback v. State (1899) 153 Ind. 545, 55 N. E. 420;Pierson v. State (1921) 191 Ind. 206, 131 N. E. 397;Taylor v. State (1921) 191 Ind. 200, 132 N. E. 294, 295; Flanagan v. State (1922; Ind. Sup.) 137 N. E. 178;Moore v. State (1923; Ind. Sup.) 141 N. E. 638, 639;McNaught v. State......
  • Cammack v. Kentucky Home Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 17071.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 22, 1943
    ...Co. v. Miles, 1912, 177 Ind. 109, 96 N.E. 145;Stremmel v. Gaar, Scott & Co., 1911, 176 Ind. 600, 96 N.E. 703;Taylor v. State, 1921, 191 Ind. 200, 132 N.E. 294;Crouse et al. v. Crouse, 1939, 106 Ind.App. 565, 21 N.E.2d 71. Such being the law it is apparent that the evidence in the instant ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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