State v. Delaney

South Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Delaney

156 N.W. 580, 37 S.D. 34

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 4, 1916

DocketFile No. 3957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 N.W. 580 (State v. Delaney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Delaney, 156 N.W. 580, 37 S.D. 34 (S.D. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, having been convicted of grand larceny, brings the case here on appeal. A reversal is asked upon the sole ground of alleged variance between the proof of ownership of the stolen property and the allegation of ownership in the information.

[35]*35Appellant’s brief was served on the 31st day of Decmber, 1915. A transcript, or partial transcript, of the evidence was filed and attached to the judgment roll, but no settled record has ever been certified to by the trial judge. Appellant’s attention was called to the condition of the record by an order issued by this court, on the 24th day of January, 1916, citing appellant to show cause on the 5th day of February, 19x6, why said transcript should not be stricken from the record and the judgment appealed from affirmed. To this order to show cause appellant made no response whatever, nor have any steps been taken to correct the record.

This being the case, said transcript will be stricken from the record, and, as -the only question submitted for determination is one that requires a consideration of the evidence, and there being no evidence before the court, the anpeal will be deemed abandoned, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, having been convicted of grand larceny, brings the case here on appeal. A reversal is asked upon the sole ground of alleged variance between the proof of ownership of the stolen property and the allegation of ownership in the information.

[35]*35Appellant’s brief was served on the 31st day of Decmber, 1915. A transcript, or partial transcript, of the evidence was filed and attached to the judgment roll, but no settled record has ever been certified to by the trial judge. Appellant’s attention was called to the condition of the record by an order issued by this court, on the 24th day of January, 1916, citing appellant to show cause on the 5th day of February, 19x6, why said transcript should not be stricken from the record and the judgment appealed from affirmed. To this order to show cause appellant made no response whatever, nor have any steps been taken to correct the record.

This being the case, said transcript will be stricken from the record, and, as -the only question submitted for determination is one that requires a consideration of the evidence, and there being no evidence before the court, the anpeal will be deemed abandoned, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 N.W. 580, 37 S.D. 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-delaney-sd-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack