People v. Van Maren

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Van Maren

85 N.W. 240, 126 Mich. 103, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 687

Michigan Supreme Court·Decided February 27, 1901·Published

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Counsel for respondent requested the court to instruct the jury that if the fishing was done within the limits of the city of Grand Haven, and not within the township, they must acquit. This was refused, the court instructing them that it was sufficient to convict if the act was doiie within the county of Ottawa. The instruction was correct. People v. Waller, 70 Mich. 237 (38 N. W. 261).

We have examined the other points raised, and find no error. They are not of sufficient importance to require a written opinion.

The conviction is affirmed, and the court below directed to proceed to sentence.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Counsel for respondent requested the court to instruct the jury that if the fishing was done within the limits of the city of Grand Haven, and not within the township, they must acquit. This was refused, the court instructing them that it was sufficient to convict if the act was doiie within the county of Ottawa. The instruction was correct. People v. Waller, 70 Mich. 237 (38 N. W. 261).

We have examined the other points raised, and find no error. They are not of sufficient importance to require a written opinion.

The conviction is affirmed, and the court below directed to proceed to sentence.

The other Justices concurred.

People v. Van Maren, 85 N.W. 240, 126 Mich. 103, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 687 (Mich. 1901).

Pincite

85 N.W. 240 (People v. Van Maren) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related