State v. Hagerty

141 P. 174, 92 Kan. 680, 1914 Kan. LEXIS 306
Supreme Court of Kansas·Decided June 6, 1914·No. No. 19,272·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant was charged, tried and convicted of maintaining a house of prostitution. Complaint is made of alleged errors in the admission of evidence, of the giving and refusal of instructions and of the overruling of a plea in abatement. Neither of these complaints are properly presented, in the absence of any bill of exceptions except the plea in abatement which is in the record. (The State v. Smith, 38 Kan. 194, 16 Pac. 254; The State v. Hastie, 44 Kan. 427, 24 Pac. 954; The State v. Roberts, 67 Kan. 631, 73 Pac. 905; The State v. McCoy, 70 Kan. 672, 79 Pac. 156; The State v. Chirafisi, 86 Kan. 533, 121 Pac. 364.) However, we have considered the several assignments of error and find nothing which would justify a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

State v. Hagerty, 141 P. 174, 92 Kan. 680, 1914 Kan. LEXIS 306 (kan 1914).

141 P. 174 (State v. Hagerty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Smith
38 Kan. 194 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1888)
State v. Hastie
44 Kan. 427 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1890)
State v. Roberts
73 P. 905 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1903)
State v. McCoy
79 P. 156 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1905)
State v. Chirafisi
121 P. 364 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1912)