Ryan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ryan v. State

1911 OK CR 432, 118 P. 1115, 6 Okla. Crim. 642, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 510

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 23, 1911

DocketNo. A-675.

StatusPublished

This text of 1911 OK CR 432 (Ryan v. State) 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

Ryan v. State, 1911 OK CR 432, 118 P. 1115, 6 Okla. Crim. 642, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 510 (Okla. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county on the 23rd day of February, 1909, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and was on the 9th day of March, thereafter, adjudged by the court to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of thirty days. Prom this judgment an appeal was taken to this court. On the date the ease was called for trial, a motion for continuance was filed setting up the fact the plaintiff in error was sick in bed, and a certificate from his physician was attached as an exhibit. Plaintiff in error was not in attendance on the court during the day and late in the afternoon an order was made requiring his presence at 7:30 p. m. He appeared and was sworn as a witness to testify on his motion for continuance. His testimony in addition to the certificate of his physician showed that he was sufferig from la grippe; that he had fever at the time; and that he had gotten out of bed to appear in court in order to protect his bondsmen from the expense of a forfeiture. No showing upon the motion was offered by the state. We think that the motion should have been allowed and the cause continued until such time as the plaintiff in error could prepare and appear for trial. The arrest in this ease was made on the 26th day of December, 1908. Prom the record it does not apepar that the state would have been prejudiced in any manner by a continuance. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county on the 23rd day of February, 1909, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and was on the 9th day of March, thereafter, adjudged by the court to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of thirty days. Prom this judgment an appeal was taken to this court. On the date the ease was called for trial, a motion for continuance was filed setting up the fact the plaintiff in error was sick in bed, and a certificate from his physician was attached as an exhibit. Plaintiff in error was not in attendance on the court during the day and late in the afternoon an order was made requiring his presence at 7:30 p. m. He appeared and was sworn as a witness to testify on his motion for continuance. His testimony in addition to the certificate of his physician showed that he was sufferig from la grippe; that he had fever at the time; and that he had gotten out of bed to appear in court in order to protect his bondsmen from the expense of a forfeiture. No showing upon the motion was offered by the state. We think that the motion should have been allowed and the cause continued until such time as the plaintiff in error could prepare and appear for trial. The arrest in this ease was made on the 26th day of December, 1908. Prom the record it does not apepar that the state would have been prejudiced in any manner by a continuance. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK CR 432, 118 P. 1115, 6 Okla. Crim. 642, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-state-oklacrimapp-1911.