Manhattan Oil Co. v. State

60 N.E. 732, 26 Ind. App. 693, 1901 Ind. App. LEXIS 333
Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided May 28, 1901·No. No. 3,386·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Robinson, J.

Appellant was tried and convicted for obstructing a highway. Overruling a motion for a new trial is the only error assigned. The record fails to disclose affirmatively that appellant was arraigned or that a plea to the affidavit and information was entered either by or for appellant. It is held that this question is presented by an assignment as a cause for a new trial that the verdict is contrary to law. Bowen v. State, 108 Ind. 411. As the record [694] does' not show an arraignment, or that appellant waived it, nor that a plea was entered by or for appellant, nnder the rule declared by the Supreme Court the judgment must be reversed. Hicks v. State, 111 Ind. 402; Weir v. State, 115 Ind. 210; Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54; McJunkins v. State, 10 Ind. 140; Shoffner v. State, 93 Ind. 519; Miller v. State (Ind. App.) 59 N. E. 287.

Judgment reversed.

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

Manhattan Oil Co. v. State, 60 N.E. 732, 26 Ind. App. 693, 1901 Ind. App. LEXIS 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 1901).

60 N.E. 732 (Manhattan Oil Co. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mahoney v. State
72 N.E. 151 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1904)