State v. Myers

Supreme Court of Iowa

State v. Myers

35 N.W. 114, 70 Iowa 760

DecidedDecember 2, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 35 N.W. 114 (State v. Myers) 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. Myers, 35 N.W. 114, 70 Iowa 760 (iowa 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Seeyers, J

The defendant was indicted for an assault with intent to commit murder, and was found guilty on a trial before a jury. Judgment was pronounced on the verdict, and he appeals. In the record before us we find the indictment, instructions, verdict and judgment of the court, and motion for a new trial, which was overruled. A new trial was asked on eight grounds, but we are able to consider only one of such grounds, for the [761]*761reason that the evidence is not before us, and, as there is no bill of exceptions, we aveunableto say whether the seven grounds upon which the motion is based are true or not. The remaining ground of the motion is that the court erred in the charge to the jury, and in relation thereto we have to say that the charge seems to us to be correct. Abstractly considered, it certainly is; and whether it is applicable to the evidence we are of course unable to say.

AFFIRMED.

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

Seeyers, J

The defendant was indicted for an assault with intent to commit murder, and was found guilty on a trial before a jury. Judgment was pronounced on the verdict, and he appeals. In the record before us we find the indictment, instructions, verdict and judgment of the court, and motion for a new trial, which was overruled. A new trial was asked on eight grounds, but we are able to consider only one of such grounds, for the [761]*761reason that the evidence is not before us, and, as there is no bill of exceptions, we aveunableto say whether the seven grounds upon which the motion is based are true or not. The remaining ground of the motion is that the court erred in the charge to the jury, and in relation thereto we have to say that the charge seems to us to be correct. Abstractly considered, it certainly is; and whether it is applicable to the evidence we are of course unable to say.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 N.W. 114, 70 Iowa 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-myers-iowa-1886.