Mulkins v. United States

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Mulkins v. United States

61 P. 925, 10 Okla. 288, 1900 Okla. LEXIS 23

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 30, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 61 P. 925 (Mulkins v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mulkins v. United States, 61 P. 925, 10 Okla. 288, 1900 Okla. LEXIS 23 (Okla. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Buewell, J.:

The appellant, William Mulleins, was charged by complaint in the district court of Canadian county with the crime of cutting and removing timber from the Caddo Indian reservation. The complaint was verified by Hon. B. S. McGuire, assistant U. S. Attorney, on information and belief only. When the case was called for trial the defendant, by his counsel, objected to the introduction of any evidence, because of the insufficiency of the complaint. After t-rial, conviction and sentence the defendant filed his motion for a new trial, and after it was overruled by the court he interposed a *289 motion in arrest of judgment, which was also denied. Exceptions were saved to each of these rulings and an appeal taken by transcript to this court.

The appellant presents just one question to this court, viz: the sufficiency of the verification of the complaint. A verification, on information and belief, 'to a complaint in a criminal case is not sufficient to authorize a court to put the defendant upon trial for the offense charged therein. Such complaint should be «worn to positively, or the facts upon which the warrant should issue ought to he presented to the court by a positive affidavit, or by competent evidence. (Miller v. U. S. 7 Ok. 315; 57 Pac. 386.)

The complaint was not sufficient. For the reason herein stated the case is reversed and remanded, at the cost of the appellee, and the defendant will be held to await the action of the district court of Canadian county, and said court is hereby directed to grant leave to the United States to properly verify the complaint heretofore filed, or to file a new complaint for such offense.

McAtee, J., having presided in the court below, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.

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

Opinion of the court by

Buewell, J.:

The appellant, William Mulleins, was charged by complaint in the district court of Canadian county with the crime of cutting and removing timber from the Caddo Indian reservation. The complaint was verified by Hon. B. S. McGuire, assistant U. S. Attorney, on information and belief only. When the case was called for trial the defendant, by his counsel, objected to the introduction of any evidence, because of the insufficiency of the complaint. After t-rial, conviction and sentence the defendant filed his motion for a new trial, and after it was overruled by the court he interposed a *289 motion in arrest of judgment, which was also denied. Exceptions were saved to each of these rulings and an appeal taken by transcript to this court.

The appellant presents just one question to this court, viz: the sufficiency of the verification of the complaint. A verification, on information and belief, 'to a complaint in a criminal case is not sufficient to authorize a court to put the defendant upon trial for the offense charged therein. Such complaint should be «worn to positively, or the facts upon which the warrant should issue ought to he presented to the court by a positive affidavit, or by competent evidence. (Miller v. U. S. 7 Ok. 315; 57 Pac. 386.)

The complaint was not sufficient. For the reason herein stated the case is reversed and remanded, at the cost of the appellee, and the defendant will be held to await the action of the district court of Canadian county, and said court is hereby directed to grant leave to the United States to properly verify the complaint heretofore filed, or to file a new complaint for such offense.

McAtee, J., having presided in the court below, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 P. 925, 10 Okla. 288, 1900 Okla. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulkins-v-united-states-okla-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack