State v. City of Bangor

38 Me. 592
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 1, 1854·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Shepley, C. J.

— After verdict a motion was made in arrest of judgment, for a cause not apparent from a record of the case, but requiring proof to be made by the introduction of the record of another case.

A motion in arrest of judgment can be entertained only for matters apparent upon an inspection of the record. Bangor Bank v. Treat, 6 Greenl. 207; Root v. Henry, 6 Mass. 504; Watt's case, 4 Leigh, 672; State v. Heyward, 2 Nott & McCord, 312; Gardner v. The People, 3 Scam. 83; Steward v. The State, 13 S. & M. 573.

It is not therefore necessary to consider, whether the objection would have been effectual, if it had been properly and seasonably presented. Exceptions overruled.

Tenney, Howard and Appleton, J. J., concurred.

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

State v. City of Bangor, 38 Me. 592 (Me. 1854).

38 Me. 592 (State v. City of Bangor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Zisblatt
172 F.2d 740 (Second Circuit, 1949)