Fleckenstein v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Fleckenstein v. State

165 N.E. 771, 89 Ind. App. 58, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 91

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 29, 1929

DocketNo. 13,629.

StatusPublished

This text of 165 N.E. 771 (Fleckenstein v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fleckenstein v. State, 165 N.E. 771, 89 Ind. App. 58, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 91 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Remy, J.

The only question sought to be presented by this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision of the trial court, by which appellant was convicted of maintaining a common nuisance, within the meaning of §24 of the act of 1925 (Acts 1925 p. 144, §2740 Burns 1926).

*59 The record shows the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial on “the forty-ninth judicial day of the September term, 1926” of the trial court, and that on the same day an appeal was prayed; but there is no showing that time beyond the term was given to present the bill of exceptions containing the evidence to the judge for approval. The record does show that the bill of exceptions was, in fact, filed November 13, 1926, “the same being the sixth judicial day of the November term of said court.”

Under repeated decisions of this court and the Supreme Court, we must hold that the evidence is not in the record. Flanagan v. State (1922), 192 Ind. 662, 137 N. E. 179; Dietz v. State (1929), ante 45, 165 N. E. 770.

The evidence not being in the record, the sufficiency thereof is not presented.

Affirmed.

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

Remy, J.

The only question sought to be presented by this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision of the trial court, by which appellant was convicted of maintaining a common nuisance, within the meaning of §24 of the act of 1925 (Acts 1925 p. 144, §2740 Burns 1926).

*59 The record shows the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial on “the forty-ninth judicial day of the September term, 1926” of the trial court, and that on the same day an appeal was prayed; but there is no showing that time beyond the term was given to present the bill of exceptions containing the evidence to the judge for approval. The record does show that the bill of exceptions was, in fact, filed November 13, 1926, “the same being the sixth judicial day of the November term of said court.”

Under repeated decisions of this court and the Supreme Court, we must hold that the evidence is not in the record. Flanagan v. State (1922), 192 Ind. 662, 137 N. E. 179; Dietz v. State (1929), ante 45, 165 N. E. 770.

The evidence not being in the record, the sufficiency thereof is not presented.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 N.E. 771, 89 Ind. App. 58, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleckenstein-v-state-indctapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack