Heier v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Heier v. State

122 N.E. 578, 188 Ind. 172, 1919 Ind. LEXIS 33

Indiana Supreme Court·Decided March 25, 1919·No. No. 23,438·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Townsend, J.

— Appellant was convicted of a violation of what is commonly known as the “Blind Tiger” Law and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and imprisoned in the county jail for thirty days.

It is his contention that he should have been sentenced [173] to the penal farm. He attempts to present this question by a motion for a new trial.

An objection to place of imprisonment should have been presented by a motion to modify the judgment. Hunt v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 644, 117 N. E. 856.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 122 N. E. 578. See 97 Am. St. 371, 16 C. J. 1314.

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

Townsend, J.

— Appellant was convicted of a violation of what is commonly known as the “Blind Tiger” Law and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and imprisoned in the county jail for thirty days.

It is his contention that he should have been sentenced [173] to the penal farm. He attempts to present this question by a motion for a new trial.

An objection to place of imprisonment should have been presented by a motion to modify the judgment. Hunt v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 644, 117 N. E. 856.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 122 N. E. 578. See 97 Am. St. 371, 16 C. J. 1314.

Heier v. State, 122 N.E. 578, 188 Ind. 172, 1919 Ind. LEXIS 33 (Ind. 1919).

Pincite

122 N.E. 578 (Heier v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related