McGlynn v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

McGlynn v. State

168 N.E. 715, 90 Ind. App. 280, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 314

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 14, 1929

DocketNo. 13,945.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 N.E. 715 (McGlynn v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGlynn v. State, 168 N.E. 715, 90 Ind. App. 280, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 314 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Enloe, J.

Martha Swarat, Hattie Weakly, Bessie *281 Shaw, Marie McGlynn and Ray Mitchell were indicted by the grand jury of Marion county upon a charge of conspiracy to steal merchandise. The defendants, Swarat, McGlynn and Mitchell each pleaded not guilty. From a finding by the court of “guilty as charged,” separate appeals have been prosecuted, the error assigned heréin being the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. We have searched the brief of appellant in vain to find her motion for a new trial. Under the third subdivision of said brief, “How the issues were decided and what the judgment was,” we find the following: “The defendant, Marie McGlynn, thereupon filed a motion for a new trial (Rec. pp. 12, 13, 14), which motion was, by the court, overruled (Rec. p. 15)”; and, under the fifth subdivision of said brief, “The Record,” we find the following: “Motion for a new trial is overruled and to which ruling the defendant by counsel excepts. (See Rec. L. 1 & 2 p. 15).” It follows that the brief is insufficient to present any question, State, ex rel., v. Birden (1918), 187 Ind. 466, 119 N. E. 865; Buser, Comptroller, v. State, ex rel. (1928), 200 Ind. 115, 161 N. E. 825; State, ex rel., v. Hinds, Trustee (1929), 200 Ind. 613, 165 N. E. 754.

Affirmed.

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

Enloe, J.

Martha Swarat, Hattie Weakly, Bessie *281 Shaw, Marie McGlynn and Ray Mitchell were indicted by the grand jury of Marion county upon a charge of conspiracy to steal merchandise. The defendants, Swarat, McGlynn and Mitchell each pleaded not guilty. From a finding by the court of “guilty as charged,” separate appeals have been prosecuted, the error assigned heréin being the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. We have searched the brief of appellant in vain to find her motion for a new trial. Under the third subdivision of said brief, “How the issues were decided and what the judgment was,” we find the following: “The defendant, Marie McGlynn, thereupon filed a motion for a new trial (Rec. pp. 12, 13, 14), which motion was, by the court, overruled (Rec. p. 15)”; and, under the fifth subdivision of said brief, “The Record,” we find the following: “Motion for a new trial is overruled and to which ruling the defendant by counsel excepts. (See Rec. L. 1 & 2 p. 15).” It follows that the brief is insufficient to present any question, State, ex rel., v. Birden (1918), 187 Ind. 466, 119 N. E. 865; Buser, Comptroller, v. State, ex rel. (1928), 200 Ind. 115, 161 N. E. 825; State, ex rel., v. Hinds, Trustee (1929), 200 Ind. 613, 165 N. E. 754.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.E. 715, 90 Ind. App. 280, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcglynn-v-state-indctapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack