Weer v. State
Decision Date | 28 November 1941 |
Docket Number | 27462. |
Citation | 37 N.E.2d 537,219 Ind. 217 |
Parties | WEER et al. v. STATE. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
For former opinion, see 36 N.E.2d 787.
Appeal from St. Joseph Circuit Court; Aldo J Simpson, speciaL judge.
Harry Taylor, Al. W. Johannes, and William E. Voor (of Voor Jackson & Grant), all of South Bend (George Farage and Nicholas Cholis, both of South Bend, and Thomas E. Garvin Edward J. Fillenwarth, and Ralph B. Gregg, all of Indianapolis, of counsel), for appellants.
George N. Beamer, Atty. Gen., Glen L. Steckley and Warren W. Martin, Deputy Attys. Gen., and James E. Keating, Deputy Pros. Atty., for appellee.
The appellants have filed a petition for rehearing, in which they assert that this court failed to adequately discharge the constitutional mandate resting upon it to give a statement in writing upon each question arising in the record. § 5, Article 7, Constitution of Indiana. A question arising in the record, within the meaning of this provision, must be one, 'the decision of which is necessary to the final determination of the cause; and which the record presents with a fullness and distinctness rendering it possible for the Court to comprehend it in all its bearings.' Willets v. Ridgway, 1857, 9 Ind. 367, 370.
In their petition for rehearing, the appellants urge that four of the alleged errors not previously considered ought to result in a reversal, and we have concluded to pass upon these propositions. They are: (1) Error on the part of the trial court in denying the separate motions of the appellant Weer for his discharge prior to the trial; (2) error in the admission of the testimony of an examiner for the Gross Income Tax Division relating to information which he obtained in his official capacity and conversations he had with the appellant Rose; (3) error arising on the trial by reason of the refusal of the court below to sustain the motion of the appellant Weer to withdraw the submission; and (4) error in the giving of the court's instruction No. 4. We shall consider these alleged errors in the order stated above.
In the principal opinion we discussed Weer's motion for discharge, but unfortunately referred to it as having been made by Rose. We welcome the opportunity to make the correction, and with that modification we are satisfied with the disposition of the claim that the trial court erred in denying Weer's motion to be discharged.
The alleged error with respect to the admission of the testimony of the examiner for the Gross Income Tax Division was predicated upon assignments in the motion for a new trial, of which the following is typical:
In passing upon the sufficiency of another assignment of the same character, this court said in Brown v. State, 1939, 216 Ind. 106, 108, 23 N.E.2d 267, 268, 269:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zehrlaut v. State
...of delay. There is no similarity between this motion and a motion to quash. (2) Weer et al. v. State, 1941, 219 Ind. 217, 36 N.E.2d 787, 37 N.E.2d 537. In this case the defendants were properly charged with the delay occasioned by the filing and determination of pleas in abatements which ar......