Gardner v. Newbert

Indiana Supreme Court

Gardner v. Newbert

128 N.E. 596, 189 Ind. 201, 1920 Ind. LEXIS 15

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 16, 1920

DocketNo. 23,714

StatusPublished

This text of 128 N.E. 596 (Gardner v. Newbert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gardner v. Newbert, 128 N.E. 596, 189 Ind. 201, 1920 Ind. LEXIS 15 (Ind. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, C. J.

Appellants were convicted of indirect contempt. They claim (1) that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial; (2) that the court erred in overruling their separate motions to discharge the rule. They have not set out their motion for a new trial; nor have they set out their motions to discharge the rule; nor have they set out the substance of any of these motions. They have set out an information for contempt, but no such information is found in the record.

Judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Harvey, J., absent.

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

Townsend, C. J.

Appellants were convicted of indirect contempt. They claim (1) that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial; (2) that the court erred in overruling their separate motions to discharge the rule. They have not set out their motion for a new trial; nor have they set out their motions to discharge the rule; nor have they set out the substance of any of these motions. They have set out an information for contempt, but no such information is found in the record.

Judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Harvey, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 N.E. 596, 189 Ind. 201, 1920 Ind. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-newbert-ind-1920.