State v. Carmichael

3 Kan. 102
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1865
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 3 Kan. 102 (State v. Carmichael) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Carmichael, 3 Kan. 102 (kan 1865).

Opinion

[103]*103By the Court,

Crozier, C. J.

The defendant was indicted in Atchison county under the 197th section of the Crimes Act for oppression and partiality in office as sheriff of said cormty. The indictment charged that he had in his hands for execution an order of sale issued from the District Court in a cause wherein Thomas A. Hartwell was plaintiff and Josiali Brawley, Administrator of Presley Montgomery, was defendant, and that the offense consisted in the manner in which the writ was excuted by him.

The defendant moved to quash the indictment, which motion was overruled.

The cause was submitted to a jury, when the State offered in evidence a judgment of the District Court of Atchison county, and an order of sale issued in pursuance thereof, purporting to have been rendered and issued in a cause wherein Thomas H. Hartwell was plaintiff and Josiah Brawley, Administrator of Presley Montgomery, and Emma Montgomery were defendants. The defendant objected on account of the variance and the objection was sustained. The jury returned a verdict of “ not guilty,” the defendant was discharged, and the State appealed.

Is this such a case as may be appealed to this court ?

Section 266 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is as follows:

Section 266. Appeals to the Supreme Court may be taken by the territory (state) in the following cases, and no other. First: Upon a judgment for the defendant on quashing or setting aside an indictment. Second: Upon an order of the court arresting the judgment. Third: Ujion a question reserved by the territory (state).”

In this case the indictment was not quashed,or set aside; the judgment was not arrested, nor was any question reserved by the State. Hence it is not a case in which an appeal is allowed, and the appeal will be dismissed.

All the justices concurring.

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

Related

State v. LaPointe
Supreme Court of Kansas, 2017
State v. Allen
191 P. 476 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1920)
State v. Rook
49 L.R.A. 186 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1900)
State v. Hickerson
55 Kan. 133 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1895)
State v. Lee
49 Kan. 570 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1892)
State v. Smith
49 Kan. 358 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1892)
State v. Moon
45 Kan. 145 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1891)
State v. Phillips
33 Kan. 100 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Kan. 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carmichael-kan-1865.