Buckley v. Schwartz

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Buckley v. Schwartz

53 N.W. 511, 83 Wis. 304, 1892 Wisc. LEXIS 229

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 25, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 53 N.W. 511 (Buckley v. Schwartz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buckley v. Schwartz, 53 N.W. 511, 83 Wis. 304, 1892 Wisc. LEXIS 229 (Wis. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, J.

The plaintiff produced evidence tending to prove the contract which he alleged. The defendant introduced evidence to the contrary, but there was sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of the question to the jury.

The only remaining question is whether the evidence showed a conviction of Phillips. The defendant contends that, because judgment was arrested upon the verdict, the verdict was thereby set aside, and that, in legal contemplation, there was no conviction. This exact question was decided in State v. Parish, 43 Wis. 395. It was there held that an order arresting judgment does not set aside the verdict in a criminal case. The verdict remains, and is available to the accused in a second prosecution for the same offense, under the,plea of autrefois convict. The question is not an open one in this court.

There are no other questions presented which require discussion. The order granting a new trial was not made under the discretionary power of the court, but for the single reason that the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant under the law of the case. In this the circuit judge was mistaken. The law did not so require.

By the Court.— The order of the circuit court is reversed, and the action remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Winslow, J.

The plaintiff produced evidence tending to prove the contract which he alleged. The defendant introduced evidence to the contrary, but there was sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of the question to the jury.

The only remaining question is whether the evidence showed a conviction of Phillips. The defendant contends that, because judgment was arrested upon the verdict, the verdict was thereby set aside, and that, in legal contemplation, there was no conviction. This exact question was decided in State v. Parish, 43 Wis. 395. It was there held that an order arresting judgment does not set aside the verdict in a criminal case. The verdict remains, and is available to the accused in a second prosecution for the same offense, under the,plea of autrefois convict. The question is not an open one in this court.

There are no other questions presented which require discussion. The order granting a new trial was not made under the discretionary power of the court, but for the single reason that the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant under the law of the case. In this the circuit judge was mistaken. The law did not so require.

By the Court.— The order of the circuit court is reversed, and the action remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 N.W. 511, 83 Wis. 304, 1892 Wisc. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckley-v-schwartz-wis-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack