State v. Eldridge

116 N.E. 421, 186 Ind. 330, 1917 Ind. LEXIS 62
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedJune 6, 1917
DocketNo. 23,028
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 116 N.E. 421 (State v. Eldridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana 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. Eldridge, 116 N.E. 421, 186 Ind. 330, 1917 Ind. LEXIS 62 (Ind. 1917).

Opinion

Harvey, J.

[331]*3311. [330]*330Appellee was indicted for violation of §7111k Burns 1914, which is §11 of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1911, Acts 1911 p. 288, 298. The charge, in substance, is that appellee “did then and there unlawfully and feloniously before and at the time of the elec[331]*331tion hereinafter mentioned by myself and others directly and indirectly give, provide, pay wholly and in part the expense of giving and providing meat, drink, entertainment and provisions to certain persons to the Grand Jury unknown for the purpose of influencing said certain persons, to the Grand Jury unknown, to get their votes and to vote upon a certain measure and proposition at a Special Election known as a Local Option Election, held pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana, governing such elections, in Curry Township, County of Sullivan, State of Indiana, on May 28th, 1915; said persons whose names are to the Grand Jury unknown being about to vote or to refrain from voting at said election.” Said section applies to local option elections. State v. Fairbanks, (1917), — Ind. —, 115 N. E. 769.

2. The indictment is not at fault, as is asserted by appellee, in not naming the persons to whom meat, etc., was given, because it does allege that such'names are to the “grand jury unknown.” Walters v. State (1910), 174 Ind. 545, 92 N. E. 537. Furthermore, the specific charge is not that defendant gave directly meat, drink, entertainment, etc., but that he did “give, provide, pay wholly and in part the expense of giving,” etc.

3. The indictment is at fault in that it does Hot allege that such expense was paid to induce the receivers of the meat, drink, entertainment, etc., purchased therewith, who intended to vote for or against the proposition to refrain from voting at all, and in that it does not allege that such expense was paid to induce the receivers of such entertainment who intended not to vote, to change their minds, and not only vote, but to vote for or against. State v. McCrocklin (1917), ante 277, 115 N. E. 929.

[332]*332The indictment was properly quashed, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 116 N. E. 421. Bribery of voters as an offense, 97 Am. Dec. 716.

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

Related

Heinhold v. Bishop Motor Express, Inc.
660 F. Supp. 382 (N.D. Indiana, 1987)
Maher v. Hadfield
86 N.E.2d 716 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1949)
Way v. State
66 N.E.2d 608 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1946)
Southern Pacific Company v. Mitnik
58 N.E.2d 201 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1944)
Rimco Realty & Investment Corp. v. LaVigne
50 N.E.2d 953 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1943)
Modern Woodmen of America v. Hall
130 N.E. 849 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1921)
Wolfe v. Griner
119 N.E. 839 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)
Citizens Telephone Co. v. Prickett
125 N.E. 193 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1919)
Sourbier v. Brown
123 N.E. 802 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1919)
Lavene v. Friedrichs
115 N.E. 324 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 N.E. 421, 186 Ind. 330, 1917 Ind. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-eldridge-ind-1917.