Territory of Oklahoma v. Wright

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Territory of Oklahoma v. Wright

1895 OK 82, 41 P. 623, 3 Okla. 600, 1895 Okla. LEXIS 59

DecidedSeptember 7, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 1895 OK 82 (Territory of Oklahoma v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Territory of Oklahoma v. Wright, 1895 OK 82, 41 P. 623, 3 Okla. 600, 1895 Okla. LEXIS 59 (Okla. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Scott, J.:

This is a prosecution by indictment against Fred H. Wright and Jerry O’Rourke, returned into the district court of Canadian county by the grand jury on the 22d day of December, 1894, charging the *601 forgery of a certificate of attendance of a jui'or of the said district court, issued by the clex'k thereof. Upon arraignment on the 4th day of March, 1895, the defendants, Wright and O’Roui'ke, interposed-a demurrer to said indictment, alleging, first, that the indictment was not entitled in a court having authority to receive it; second, that it did not state the name of the court to which it was presented, and third, that the facts stated thex’ein did not constitute a public offense, axxd on the 6th day of March, 1895, said demurrer was sustained, the indictments dismissed and the defendaxxts held to await the actioxx of the xxext grand jury. The territory, feeling aggrieved at the action of the court, appeals to this coui-t and asks a reversal thereof.

This case presents the same questions as those decided by this court in the case of Territory v. John Delana and Charles W. Beacom, reported in this volume, p. 573, except that the indictment in this case alleges the forgery of another and different juror’s certificate, and upon the same reasoning and authority supporting our view of that case, the action of the lower court in this case will be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so oi'dei-ed.

Dale, C. J., having presided below, xxot sitting; all the other Justices concurring.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Scott, J.:

This is a prosecution by indictment against Fred H. Wright and Jerry O’Rourke, returned into the district court of Canadian county by the grand jury on the 22d day of December, 1894, charging the *601 forgery of a certificate of attendance of a jui'or of the said district court, issued by the clex'k thereof. Upon arraignment on the 4th day of March, 1895, the defendants, Wright and O’Roui'ke, interposed-a demurrer to said indictment, alleging, first, that the indictment was not entitled in a court having authority to receive it; second, that it did not state the name of the court to which it was presented, and third, that the facts stated thex’ein did not constitute a public offense, axxd on the 6th day of March, 1895, said demurrer was sustained, the indictments dismissed and the defendaxxts held to await the actioxx of the xxext grand jury. The territory, feeling aggrieved at the action of the court, appeals to this coui-t and asks a reversal thereof.

This case presents the same questions as those decided by this court in the case of Territory v. John Delana and Charles W. Beacom, reported in this volume, p. 573, except that the indictment in this case alleges the forgery of another and different juror’s certificate, and upon the same reasoning and authority supporting our view of that case, the action of the lower court in this case will be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so oi'dei-ed.

Dale, C. J., having presided below, xxot sitting; all the other Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1895 OK 82, 41 P. 623, 3 Okla. 600, 1895 Okla. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/territory-of-oklahoma-v-wright-okla-1895.