Peacock v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Peacock v. State

91 N.E. 597, 174 Ind. 185, 1910 Ind. LEXIS 95

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedApril 29, 1910

DocketNo. 21,562

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 91 N.E. 597 (Peacock v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peacock v. State, 91 N.E. 597, 174 Ind. 185, 1910 Ind. LEXIS 95 (Ind. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hadley, C. J.

Appellant was convicted of wife desertion, under §2635 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 75. His motions to quash the indictment and for a new trial were respectively overruled.

1. The only objection pointed out to the indictment is that it does not sufficiently charge that the desertion was felonious. The pertinent part of the indictment is as follows: “That Erastus Peacock, on November 5, 1907, at the county and state aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully and felon desert his wife, Florence Peacock, leaving her without reasonable means of support, she, said Florence Peacock, having never been guilty of adultery, or other vicious or immoral conduct.” The point made against the indictment is frivolous. It is manifest that the failure of the scrivener of the indictment to write fully the ivord “feloniously” is a mere clerical error, and could not have harmed defendant.

2. The only questions made under the motion for a new trial arise upon instructions given and refused by the court, and there are no such questions properly before us, because no instructions appear in the record by bill of exceptions. Donovan v. State (1908), 170 Ind. 123; Williams v. State (1908), 170 Ind. 642; Heath v. State (1910), 173 Ind. 296; Lucas v. State (1910), 173 Ind. 302.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hadley, C. J.

Appellant was convicted of wife desertion, under §2635 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 75. His motions to quash the indictment and for a new trial were respectively overruled.

1. The only objection pointed out to the indictment is that it does not sufficiently charge that the desertion was felonious. The pertinent part of the indictment is as follows: “That Erastus Peacock, on November 5, 1907, at the county and state aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully and felon desert his wife, Florence Peacock, leaving her without reasonable means of support, she, said Florence Peacock, having never been guilty of adultery, or other vicious or immoral conduct.” The point made against the indictment is frivolous. It is manifest that the failure of the scrivener of the indictment to write fully the ivord “feloniously” is a mere clerical error, and could not have harmed defendant.

2. The only questions made under the motion for a new trial arise upon instructions given and refused by the court, and there are no such questions properly before us, because no instructions appear in the record by bill of exceptions. Donovan v. State (1908), 170 Ind. 123; Williams v. State (1908), 170 Ind. 642; Heath v. State (1910), 173 Ind. 296; Lucas v. State (1910), 173 Ind. 302.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.E. 597, 174 Ind. 185, 1910 Ind. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peacock-v-state-ind-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack