State v. Waterman

127 N.W. 473, 112 Minn. 157, 1910 Minn. LEXIS 774
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided August 23, 1910·No. No. 16,783·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant was convicted in the municipal court of the city of St. Paul, upon his plea of guilty, of the offense of driving a motor car on the public streets, traversing street crossings without having such car under perfect control, and sentenced to imprisonment in the workhouse for the term of thirty days. He appealed from the judgment, and this is a motion for a stay of execution pending the appeal and that he be admitted to bail.

The right to a stay, even in a. capital case, is not an absolute one, and the court may and should refuse it, if clearly satisfied upon an inspection of the record that there is no merit in the appeal. State v. Chounard, 93 Minn. 176, 100 N. W. 1125.

The defendant urges that the statute (Laws 1909, p. 310, e. 259, § 16 [R. L. Supp. 1909, § 1278 — 16]) is unconstitutional, and that the complaint to which he pleaded guilty did not charge a public offense. We have considered both questions, and find each of them without merit.

Motion denied.

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

State v. Waterman, 127 N.W. 473, 112 Minn. 157, 1910 Minn. LEXIS 774 (Mich. 1910).

127 N.W. 473 (State v. Waterman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

St. Croix Waterway Ass'n v. Meyer
942 F. Supp. 435 (D. Minnesota, 1996)
State v. Coppes
78 N.W.2d 10 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1956)
State v. Magaha
32 A.2d 477 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1943)
Gallaher v. State
141 N.E. 347 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1923)