State v. Nejin

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Nejin

74 So. 202, 140 La. 928, 1916 La. LEXIS 1722

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided October 16, 1916·No. No. 22212·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

O’NIELL, J.

The defendant was found guilty of operating a blind tiger, in violation of Act No. 8 of Í915, was sentenced to pay a fine and be imprisoned, and has appealed. He relies upon a bill of exceptions reserved to the overruling of his motion in arrest of judgment. The grounds urged in the motion and the issues presented in this appeal are identically like those in the case of State v. Emile, 74 South. 163, ante, p. 829, No. 22210, in which the conviction and sentence were this day affirmed.

Por the reasons assigned in that case, the conviction and sentence herein appealed from are affirmed.

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

O’NIELL, J.

The defendant was found guilty of operating a blind tiger, in violation of Act No. 8 of Í915, was sentenced to pay a fine and be imprisoned, and has appealed. He relies upon a bill of exceptions reserved to the overruling of his motion in arrest of judgment. The grounds urged in the motion and the issues presented in this appeal are identically like those in the case of State v. Emile, 74 South. 163, ante, p. 829, No. 22210, in which the conviction and sentence were this day affirmed.

Por the reasons assigned in that case, the conviction and sentence herein appealed from are affirmed.

State v. Nejin, 74 So. 202, 140 La. 928, 1916 La. LEXIS 1722 (La. 1916).

Pincite

74 So. 202 (State v. Nejin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related