McCall v. State

Nebraska Supreme Court

McCall v. State

66 N.W. 635, 47 Neb. 660, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 632

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 18, 1896

DocketNo. 7359

StatusPublished

This text of 66 N.W. 635 (McCall v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCall v. State, 66 N.W. 635, 47 Neb. 660, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 632 (Neb. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Ryan, C.

In the district court of Dawes county plaintiff in error was convicted of carnally knowing and abusing, with her consent, a female child of the age of thirteen years. It is first insisted in his [661]*661behalf that while the information before the examining magistrate charged the same offense as that charged in the district court, the evidence tended to show that there had been committed a rape by the use of violence. As there is no bill of exceptions, this statement of counsel cannot be verified, and hence must be disregarded.

It is said by counsel in the brief submitted in behalf of the plaintiff in error that there were irregularities in the charging, in the absence of said counsel, a jury which had failed to agree upon a verdict. There is found in the record no evidence of this alleged fact. It cannot be assumed to exist and the argument based thereon must be disregarded. So also of the claim that a nunc pro tunc order was improperly made, and' that the defendant was sentenced in vacation. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

Ryan, C.

In the district court of Dawes county plaintiff in error was convicted of carnally knowing and abusing, with her consent, a female child of the age of thirteen years. It is first insisted in his [661]*661behalf that while the information before the examining magistrate charged the same offense as that charged in the district court, the evidence tended to show that there had been committed a rape by the use of violence. As there is no bill of exceptions, this statement of counsel cannot be verified, and hence must be disregarded.

It is said by counsel in the brief submitted in behalf of the plaintiff in error that there were irregularities in the charging, in the absence of said counsel, a jury which had failed to agree upon a verdict. There is found in the record no evidence of this alleged fact. It cannot be assumed to exist and the argument based thereon must be disregarded. So also of the claim that a nunc pro tunc order was improperly made, and' that the defendant was sentenced in vacation. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 N.W. 635, 47 Neb. 660, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccall-v-state-neb-1896.