Madden v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Madden v. State

1911 OK CR 515, 118 P. 1112, 6 Okla. Crim. 689, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 492

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 25, 1911

DocketNo. A-936.

StatusPublished

This text of 1911 OK CR 515 (Madden v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Madden v. State, 1911 OK CR 515, 118 P. 1112, 6 Okla. Crim. 689, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 492 (Okla. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Cleveland county at the September, 1910, term, on a dharge of unlawfully r<ionveying intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and thirty days’ imprisonment in the county jail. The appeal was filed in this court on the 28th day of October, 1910. No briefs have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error and no appearance made for oral argument. The Assistant Attorney General on the day the case was set for oral argument, moved the court to affirm the judgment for want of prosecution. The motion is well taken and is sustained, and the judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed with directions to enforce it.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Cleveland county at the September, 1910, term, on a dharge of unlawfully r<ionveying intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and thirty days’ imprisonment in the county jail. The appeal was filed in this court on the 28th day of October, 1910. No briefs have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error and no appearance made for oral argument. The Assistant Attorney General on the day the case was set for oral argument, moved the court to affirm the judgment for want of prosecution. The motion is well taken and is sustained, and the judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed with directions to enforce it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK CR 515, 118 P. 1112, 6 Okla. Crim. 689, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madden-v-state-oklacrimapp-1911.