State v. Adam

105 La. 737
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided July 1, 1901·No. No. 13,954·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Provosty, J.

The motion for a severance and the motion in arrest of judgment in this case are based exclusively upon the supposed impossibility for two persons to have jointly stolen the objects charged to have been stolen, namely six eggs, one undershirt and one pair of stockings. As this supposed impossibility is not apparent to us, and as the granting or the refusing of a severance is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial judge, we find no reason for disturbing the judgment of the lower court. State vs. Cately et als., 52 Ann. 574.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

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

State v. Adam, 105 La. 737 (La. 1901).

105 La. 737 (State v. Adam) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Labat
75 So. 2d 333 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1954)
State v. Cook
39 So. 2d 898 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1949)
State v. Livsey
182 So. 576 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1938)
State v. Hill
107 So. 433 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1926)