State v. Merchant

38 Iowa 375
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided June 9, 1874·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Day, J.

— We can conceive of no substantial reason for refusing to allow, under the circumstances of this case, the prosecuting witness to sign the information. The affidavits show clearly that the information was in fact sworn to; and that the omisssion of the signature occurred through mere inad[377]*377vertence. The amendment would in no -way prejudice the defendant or compromise his rights.

An information stands upon different grounds from an indictment, and is amendable. Bishop’s Criminal Procedure, Yol. 1, § 6,11, and cases cited; State v. Weare, 38 N. Y., 319, and cases cited.

The court erred we think, in refusing the amendment, and in dismissing the action.

Beversed.

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

State v. Merchant, 38 Iowa 375 (iowa 1874).

38 Iowa 375 (State v. Merchant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Phippen
244 N.W.2d 574 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1976)
State v. Hartung
30 N.W.2d 491 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1948)
State v. Abrams
108 N.W. 1041 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1906)
Town of Lovilia v. Cobb
102 N.W. 496 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1905)
State v. Reilly
78 N.W. 680 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1899)
State v. Butcher
44 N.W. 239 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1890)