State v. Conkright

Supreme Court of Iowa

State v. Conkright

12 N.W. 283, 58 Iowa 338

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedApril 22, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 12 N.W. 283 (State v. Conkright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Conkright, 12 N.W. 283, 58 Iowa 338 (iowa 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Rothrock, J.

1. CRIMINAL law : seduction : indictment. The case is submitted upon a transcript without abstract or argument for appellant. It appears that ^ie defendant has been twice tried, and at each trial was found guilty. The first verdict was set aside and a new trial awarded. The transcript does not contain the evidence offered on the trial. The indictment charges that the defendant “did unlawfully and feloniously seduce, debauch and carnally know one Caroline Jenkins.” There was a demurrer to the indictment upon the ground that no facts are stated therein constituting the crime of seduction. The demurrer was overruled. The ruling was correct. See State v. Curran, 51 Iowa, 112.

We have examined the whole record, including the instructions given by the court to the jury, and have to say that we discover no error therein.

Affirmed.

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

Rothrock, J.

1. CRIMINAL law : seduction : indictment. The case is submitted upon a transcript without abstract or argument for appellant. It appears that ^ie defendant has been twice tried, and at each trial was found guilty. The first verdict was set aside and a new trial awarded. The transcript does not contain the evidence offered on the trial. The indictment charges that the defendant “did unlawfully and feloniously seduce, debauch and carnally know one Caroline Jenkins.” There was a demurrer to the indictment upon the ground that no facts are stated therein constituting the crime of seduction. The demurrer was overruled. The ruling was correct. See State v. Curran, 51 Iowa, 112.

We have examined the whole record, including the instructions given by the court to the jury, and have to say that we discover no error therein.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.W. 283, 58 Iowa 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-conkright-iowa-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack