White v. State
| Decision Date | 29 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 24161.,24161. |
| Citation | 138 N.E. 754,193 Ind. 70 |
| Parties | WHITE v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Delaware County; Wm. A. Thompson, Judge.
William White was convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill, and he appeals. Affirmed.
J. Frank Mann and John J. O'Neill, both of Muncie, for appellant.
U. S. Lesh, Atty. Gen., and Connor D. Ross, of Indianapolis, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill. There was evidence to the effect that he ordered a sausage sandwich at a restaurant kept by a man referred to as “the Greek,” and was dissatisfied with the sandwich served to him; that he exchanged some words with Sidney Hammond, the waiter who brought him the sandwich, after which he went outside, and a few moments later threw one or more stones at the restaurant building, and fired a revolver through the window close to Hammond's head; that a police officer caught him by the wrist and demanded the gun, when he said he would “kill the s- of a b-,” and that he would not let that Greek get the best of him, but would get even with them, and that he then fired a second shot, in what direction is not shown; that the officer took the gun away from him, and it was found to have two empty shells and three loaded ones in it. Hammond testified that the bullet from the first shot passed within an inch of his head, and other witnesses said that it came through the window past Hammond, and struck the ceiling. Witnesses for the defense testified that it was a stone with which appellant broke the window, and that he shot at a tree after throwing the stones, and did not shoot toward the restaurant.
[1] Appellant has not provided an index to the evidence, giving the names of the witnesses, or the pages on which the direct examination, cross-examination, or redirect examination of any of them may be found, as is required by rule 3 (55 N. E. iv). His brief does not contain a statement of the record, setting out so much of the evidence, rulings of the court, motion for a new trial, and rulings thereon, as to show that certain evidence complained of was admitted or was excluded, that appellant stated proper objections thereto, and reserved exceptions to the rulings of the court, presented such rulings for review by a motion for a new trial, and took an exception to the ruling on his motion, as is required by rule 22 (55 N. E. v) to be shown. Therefore the rulings admitting and excluding evidence of which complaint is made are not presented for review on appeal.
[2] Neither the motion for a new trial nor its substance, the ruling thereon, and exception thereto (if any), nor the instructions challenged as being erroneous or incomplete, being...
To continue reading
Request your trial