Page images
PDF
EPUB

(230 P.) the county attorney or court clerk, as pro-, parent error warranting a reversal, the judgvided by statute. The record discloses that ment is affirmed. both the grounds set forth in the motion to dismiss are well taken. It is therefore order

3
ed that this appeal be and the same is hereby
dismissed.

E. E. HAMPTON, Plaintiff in Error, V.
STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

(No. A-4705.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of
1

Oklahoma. Nov. 25, 1924.) Appeal from MuGuy CHAPMAN, Plaintiff in Error, vnicipal Criminal Court of City of Tulsa; G. E. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. Warren, Judge. E. E. Hampton was convicted (No A-4636.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, of Oklahoma. Nov. 22, 1924.) _Appeal from and he appeals. Appeal dismissed. Guy Wilson County Court, Tulsa County; John P. Boyd, and Ingraham & Bicking, all of Tulsa, for plainJudge. Guy Chapman was convicted of the tiff in error. offense of conveying intoxicating liquor and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff in error, E. E. 30 days in the county jail, and appeals. Af- Hampton, was convicted in the municipal crimfirmed, Munroe & Nicodemus, of Tulsa, for inal court of the city of Tulsa on a charge that plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for he did have in his possession one gallon of the State.

corn whisky with intent to violate the proPER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a trial the jury returned a verdict finding him

hibitory liquor laws of the state. Upon his judgment of conviction rendered in the county guilty and fixing his punishment at confinement court of Tulsa county on the 17th day of Feb- for 90 days in the county jail and a fine of $250. ruary, 1923, wherein plaintiff in error, Guy Chapman, was found guilty of the offense of From the judgment rendered in accordance with conveying intoxicating liquor, and his punish- the verdict an appeal was taken by filing in this ment fixed as above stated. The petition in er- court on May 22, 1923, a petition in error with ror and case-made were filed in this court on

case-made. No brief has been filed and no April 14, 1923, and the cause was submitted appearance made on behalf of the appellant in

this court. on motion of the Attorney General to affirm

An examination of the record disthe judgment for failure to diligently prosecute closes that it fails to contain a copy of the judgthe appeal on the 8th day of October, 1924. ment and sentence. Evidently this appeal has No brief has been filed in behalf of plaintiff

been abandoned. The appeal herein is therein error, and no appearance was made to orally fore dismissed, and the cause remanded to the argue the cause at the time the same was sub- trial court, with direction to carry its judgment mitted. Rule 9 of this court provides:

and sentence into execution. "When no counsel appears, and no briefs are filed the court will examine the pleadings, the instructions of the court and the exceptions

4
taken thereto, and the judgment and sentence,
and, if no prejudicial error appears, will af. Thomas KEARLEY, Plaintiff in Error, v.
firm the judgment.” After an examination STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
of the pleadings, the instructions of the court, (No. A-4672.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of
and the judgment and sentence, the court finds Oklahoma. Nov, 29, 1924.) Appeal from Coun-
that no prejudicial error occurred sufficient to ty Court, Carter County; M. F. Winfrey,
authorize a reversal of this judgment, and the Judge. Thomas Kearley was convicted of man-
same is therefore affirmed.

ufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals,
Appeal dismissed. Mathers & Coakley and R.
C. Roland, all of Ardmore, for plaintiff in error.

George F. Short, Atty. Gen., and N. W. Gore,
2

Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Guy GRUB, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error, Thomas Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. (No. A-4689.) Kearley, was convicted on a charge of manufac(Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Nov. turing certain intoxicating liquor, to wit, Choc 25, 1924.) Appeal from County Court, Mc- beer, and in accordance with the verdict was Curtain County; T. G. Carr, Judge. Guy sentenced to be confined in the county jail for 30 Grub, convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, days and to pay a fine of $50. The judgment appeals. Affirmed. H. P. Hosey, of Idabel, was rendered January 8, 1923. The petition in for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, error and case-made were filed in this court on for the State.

May 8, 1923. The Attorney General has filed PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error, Guy Grub, the following motion to dismiss the appeal: was convicted on a charge that he did sell about "Comes now George F. Short, the duly qualione-balf gallon of whisky to one Lula Valentine, fied and acting Attorney General of the state and his punishment fixed at confinement for 30 of Oklahoma, and moves this honorable court days in the county jail and a fine of $100. He to dismiss the above-styled cause of action, for bas appealed from the judgment rendered upon the reason that same was not filed within the such conviction. No brief has been filed and statutory period of time allowed for such purno appearance made on behalf of appellant in pose. It appears from the record that the judg

When called for final submission, ment and sentence was rendered on January 8, the case was submitted on motion of the At- 1923, and the record filed in this court on May torney General to affirm the judgment for fail-8, 1923, which is 121 days after the date of are to prosecute. We have examined the rec- judgment and sentence, and it further appearord, and find that there is evidence sufficient to ing that no extension of time was granted.” support the judgment, and there being no ap- | For the reason therein stated, the motion to

[ocr errors]

this court.

dismiss the appeal is sustained, and the appeal , pleadings, the instructions of the court, and the is accordingly dismissed.

exceptions taken thereto, and the judgment and sentence, and, if no prejudicial error appears,

will affirm the judgment.” After an examina1

tion of the pleadings, the instructions of the

court, and the judgment and sentence, the court L. C. MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff in Error, v.

finds that STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error: cient to authorize a reversal of this judgment,

no prejudicial error occurred sufi(No. A-4641.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of

and the same is therefore affirmed. Oklahoma. Nov. 25, 1924.) Appeal from County Court, Custer County; E. J. Lindley, Judge. Affirmed. A. E. Darnell, of Clinton, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney Gen

3 eral, for the State.

G. W. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff in Error, v. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error, L. C. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. Montgomery, was convicted on a charge that he (No. A-4607.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of did have in his possession 242 gallons of whisky Oklahoma. Oct. 9, 1924. Rehearing Denied with intent to sell and convey the same, and Nov. 29, 1924.) Appeal from County Court, in accordance with the verdict of the jury he Roger Mills County; E. E Tracy Judge. G. was sentenced to be confined for 30 days in the W. Williams was convicted of manufacturing county jail and to pay a fine of $50. He whisky, and appeals. Affirmed. A. J. Welch, has appealed from the judgment rendered of Clinton, for plaintiff in error. The Atupon such conviction. The errors assigned torney General and N. W. Gore, Asst. Atty. question the sufficiency of the evidence to sus- Gen., for the State. tain the verdict. No brief has been filed on PER CURIAM. The information in this case behalf of the plaintiff in error, and the cause jointly charged G. W. Williams and Whitt Co. was submitted on the motion of the Attorney wart, Tom Brinkley, and Reuben Brinkley with General to affirm the judgment for failure to unlawfully manufacturing five gallons of whisprosecute. We have examined the record, and ky. Upon the trial the jury returned their ver: find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain dict finding the defendants G. W. Williams and the verdict, and, there being no apparent er- Whitt Cowart guilty as charged in the informaror warranting a reversal, the judgment is tion, and leaving their punishment to the court, affirmed.

and, rendering judgment on the verdict, the court sentenced the defendant G. W. Williams

to be confined in the county jail for 90 days 2

and to pay a fine of $500. From the judgment A. J. NEWMAN, Plaintiff in Error, V. G. W. Williams, he appealed by filing in this

rendered on the verdict against the defendant STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error: court on March 23, 1923, a petition in error, (No. A-4565.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Nov. 15, 1924.)

with transcript of the record. No briefs have Appeal from

been filed, and when the case was called for District Court, Lincoln County; Hal John

final submission no appearance was made for son, Judge. A. J. Newman was convicted of the crime of embezzlement, and sentenced to eral in open court moved an affirmation, on

oral argument. The Assistant Attorney Gensix months imprisonment in the state peni- the ground that the appeal had not been proptentiary, and appeals. Affirmed. J. A. Watson, of Bristow, and Jarrett & Speakman, of erly, prosecuted and had been abandoned. The

motion is sustained. Chandler, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney lower court is affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

The judgment of the General, for the State.

PER CURIAM. On the 24th day of April, 1922, the county attorney of Lincoln county

4 filed in the district court of said county an information charging the plaintiff in error, A.

Lon T. WILSON, Plaintiff in Error, V. J. Newman, with having embezzled a certain STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. sum of money from the Singer Sewing Machine (No. A-4355.) (Criminal Court of Appeals Company while acting as agent for said com- of Oklahoma. Dec. 10, 1924.) Appeal from pany in the town of Stroud, in Lincoln county, County Court, Custer County; E. J. Lindley, Okl. After arraignment and plea of not guilty, Judge. Lon T. Wilson, convicted of unlawfully the cause was tried to a jury in the month of transporting intoxicating liquors, appeals. AfAugust, 1922, resulting in a verdict of guilty,

firmed. Darnell & La Rue, of Clinton, for with punishment assessed as above stated. plaintiff in error, Judgment was rendered in accordance with the PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error, Lon T. verdict on August 19, 1922, and the petition in Wilson, was convicted on a charge of unlawerror and case-made were filed in this court on fully conveying intoxicating liquor, and his February 8, 1923. The cause was finally sub- punishment fixed at a fine of $150 and confinemitted on October 6, 1924. No brief has been ment in the county jail for 30 days. He has filed in behalf of plaintiff in error, and no ap- appealed from the judgment rendered upon pearance was made to orally argue the cause such conviction, but no brief has been filed or at the time it was submitted. The record is argument made in his behalf in this court. It voluminous, containing more than 500 pages of appears that the proof on the part of the state typewritten matter. The evidence on the part | establishes a strong case against the defendant, of the state, if believed, is sufficient to sustain and this proof is undisputed. A careful ex. the verdict and judgment. Rule 9 of this court amination of the record discloses no sufficient provides: “When no counsel appears, and no reason for a reversal of the judgment. It is briefs are filed, the court will examine the therefore affirmed.

(230 P.)

easily segregated, and no doubt were not allowS. A. KIDDER, Respondent, v. NATIONAL ed by the court. The decree will be affirmed. TIMBER & LUMBER CO., a Corporation, Appellant. (Supreme Court of Oregon. Nov. 25,

2 1924.) In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Clackamas County; J. U. Campbell, Judge. O. A. DAHL, Respondent, v. NAVY YARD This was a suit to foreclose a logger's lien. The

ROUTE, a Corporation, Appellant. pleadings are in the usual form. The defense,

(No. 18776.) in substance, is that, as to that portion of the (Supreme Court of Washington. Dec. 9, 1924.) work actually performed by plaintiff for defendant, plaintiff has been paid in full, and that Damages Om 130(2) – $2,600 for sacro-iliac the other work, for which a lien was claimed,

sprain held not excessive. was performed for another party, and for this

Verdict for $2,600 for sacro-iliac sprain held work defendant was not liable. There was also not excessive. a counterclaim in the sum of $217.79, which de Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, fendant claims was overpaid to plaintiff by King County; Tallman, Judge. reason of a mistake in the computation of the amount due him for the work which he actually

Bronson, Robinson & Jones, of Seattle, for performed. The amount claimed by plaintiff in

appellant. his lien and in the complaint was $232.36, with land & Elvidge, of Seattle, for respondent.

F. W. Moore, of Bremerton, and Tucker, Hyinterest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from November 3, 1922, the date of the completion of the alleged contract, until the filing of ly argued in this personal injury action is that

MACKINTOSH, J. The only matter seriousthe complaint. The court fixed the amount of the jury returned a verdict in an excessive plaintiff's recovery at $194.86, with interest thereon from the date of filing the lien, and tiff suffered a sacro-iliac sprain, and the amount

The testimony shows that the plain$75 attorney's fee. From a decree to the above effect defendant appeals.

of compensation awarded him was $2,600. The

G. Evert Baker, of Portland, for appellant.

medical men called to testify by the respective

parties differed somewhat as to whether other McBRIDE, C. J. The testimony in this case infirmities of the respondent were or were not is very conflicting, and we are disposed to ac

the result of this sprain. On this conflicting cept the conclusions of the experienced and testimony the jury were at liberty to choose careful judge who heard the case, with the ad- that which best satisfied their minds and convantage of seeing the witnesses and noting sciences, and evidently determined that the initheir demeanor while on the stand, rather than tial injury occasioned the pain and suffering of to attempt to substitute our judgment formed which the respondent complains. While the from a perusal of the testimony in cold type. verdict is apparently fully compensatory, it is If the testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses not so large that we are at liberty to substitute is true, and we accept it as such, plaintiff is en our estimate of what the monetary recompense titled to recover. It is contended that some non should be for that of the jury. The judgment lienable items not included in plaintiff's contract is affirmed. are included in the lien, such as the value of a dog chain and choker, and some labor in hauling MAIN, C. J., and HOLCOMB, FULLERTON, slabs, amounting to about $29, but these are and MITCHELL, JJ., concur,

amount.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 230

INDEX-DIGEST

KEY NUMBER SYSTEM

THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX

It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and Prior Re-

porter Volume Index-Digests

ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL,

ADOPTION.
IV. TRANSFER OR DEVOLUTION OFem21 (Wash.) Adopted child of intestate's
TITLE, RIGHT, INTEREST, OR predeceased brother held entitled to inherit in-
LIABILITY.

testate's property as against intestate's first
Cm 42 (Or.) Transfer of property, involved in cousins or their representatives.-In re Wad-
suit to collect note and foreclose mortgage, not dell's Estate, 230 P. 822.
abatement of suit.-Smith v. Cram, 230 P. 812.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.
ABORTION.

I. NATURE AND REQUISITES.
ww6 (Or.) Evidence of use of drug not admis-
sible, under indictment alleging use of metallic (F) Hostile Character of Possession.
instrument.-State v. Willson, 230 P. 810.

Cm 63(5) (Kan.) Possession under executory

contract of purchase subordinate and not ad-
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. verse to rights of vendor or those holding un-
w27 (Kan.) Accord and satisfaction as to der him.--Immell v. Seaverns, 230 P. 69.
breach of contract to buy improvement bonds
held for jury.--City of Wasbington v. Brown-

(G) Payment of Taxes.
Crummer Iny. Co., 230 P. 311.

92 (Cál. App.) Claimant having paid taxes,

payment thereof by another held immaterial. -
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

Pereira Farms Corporation v. Simas, 230 P.

976.
IV. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.

Caws 95 (Cal.App.) Evidence held to justify in-
62(2). (Idaho) Evidence of nonappearance ference that taxes were paid by plaintiff and
of party before certifying officer must be clear predecessors in interest.--Pereira Farms Cor-
and convincing to overthrow acknowledgment. poration v. Simas, 230 P. 976.
-Sneddon v. Birch, 230 P. 29.
Cwm 62 (4) (Idaho) Uncorroborated testimony

AGENCY.
of mortgagor insufficient to overcome certificate
of acknowledgment.-Sneddon v. Birch, 230 P. See Principal and Agent.
29.
ACTION.

AGRICULTURE.
See Abatement and Revival; Dismissal and mo? (Cal.App.) Fertilizer act inapplicable to
Nonsuit.

sale of manure.--Blumer v. Rauer, 230 P. 964.
1. GROUNDS AND CONDITIONS PRE-

ALIENATING AFFECTIONS,
CEDENT.
Oma 6 (Kan.) Court may make declaration of See Husband and Wife, Cum 325-333.
right only because it could grant consequential
relief if prayed for.-State v. Board of Com'rs

ALIENS.
of Wyandotte County, 230 P. 531.

1. DISABILITIES.
III. JOINDER, SPLITTING, CONSOLIDA Om 17 (Cal.App.) Information against alien
TION, AND SEVERANCE.

for carrying concealed pistol held to state_pub-
Em:44 (Colo.) Causes of action in partition | lic offense.-- People v. Bertolani, 230 P. 675.
petition held not joinable.--Thomas v. Mahin,
230 P. 793.

APPEAL AND ERROR.
m57(1) (Wash.) Suit by remainderman to See Courts, Em 209; Criminal Law, Em1004
quiet title to property, usable for comfort and
support of life tenant, should be consolidated For review of rulings in particular actions or

1202.
with probate proceedings, on estate of life
tenant.-Porter v. Wheeler, 230 P. 640.

proceedings, see also the various specific top-

ics.

ADJOINING LANDOWNERS.
See Boundaries; Party Walls.

ADMINISTRATION.
See Executors and Administrators.

230 P.-71

II. NATURE AND GROUNDS OF APPEL-

LATE JURISDICTION.
On 21 (Okl.) Appellate jurisdiction cannot be
acquired by agreement of parties where mo-
tion for new trial not timely filed.-Woodyard

v. Burdett, 230 P. 903.
(1121)

« PreviousContinue »