McLeod v. City of Kingfisher

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

McLeod v. City of Kingfisher

1914 OK CR 175, 142 P. 1198, 11 Okla. Crim. 667, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 71

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 12, 1914

DocketNo. A-1430.

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK CR 175 (McLeod v. City of Kingfisher) 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

McLeod v. City of Kingfisher, 1914 OK CR 175, 142 P. 1198, 11 Okla. Crim. 667, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 71 (Okla. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CUBIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Dan McLeod, was convicted in the county court of Kingfisher county on appeal from the city court of the city of Kingfisher on a charge of violating a prohibitory ordinance of the city of Kingfisher, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and imprisonment in the city jail of Kingfisher for a period of thirty-five days.' The only error of importance raised by this record is a question of the lapse of term of the county court. That question was settled adversely to the contentions of plaintiff in error by this court in the case of Tucker v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 565, 139 Pac. 998.

There being no error sufficient to justify a reversal, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

PEE CUBIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Dan McLeod, was convicted in the county court of Kingfisher county on appeal from the city court of the city of Kingfisher on a charge of violating a prohibitory ordinance of the city of Kingfisher, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and imprisonment in the city jail of Kingfisher for a period of thirty-five days.' The only error of importance raised by this record is a question of the lapse of term of the county court. That question was settled adversely to the contentions of plaintiff in error by this court in the case of Tucker v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 565, 139 Pac. 998.

There being no error sufficient to justify a reversal, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK CR 175, 142 P. 1198, 11 Okla. Crim. 667, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcleod-v-city-of-kingfisher-oklacrimapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack