Tooley v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Tooley v. State

126 N.E. 875, 73 Ind. App. 180, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 87

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 9, 1920

DocketNo. 10,307

StatusPublished

This text of 126 N.E. 875 (Tooley v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tooley v. State, 126 N.E. 875, 73 Ind. App. 180, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Dausman, J.

This action was instituted by the relatrix to recover a penalty under §8377 Burns 1914, Acts 1895 p. 167. The jury returned a verdict to the effect that appellant fraudulently entered into a marriage with relatrix with intent to avoid and escape the consequences of a prosecution for bastardy and also a prosecution for criminal seduction, which prosecutions were then pending against him. Thereupon the court rendered judgment against appellant in the sum of $200 and that appellant be imprisoned in the county jail until said sum be paid or replevied or until he be released by due process of law. The only error assigned is the ruling on the motion for a new trial, and the only contention presented is that the court erred in its charge to the jury.

We have carefully considered all the instructions, and we find no reversible error therein. §700 Burns 1914, §658 R. S. 1881. Judgment affirmed.

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

Dausman, J.

This action was instituted by the relatrix to recover a penalty under §8377 Burns 1914, Acts 1895 p. 167. The jury returned a verdict to the effect that appellant fraudulently entered into a marriage with relatrix with intent to avoid and escape the consequences of a prosecution for bastardy and also a prosecution for criminal seduction, which prosecutions were then pending against him. Thereupon the court rendered judgment against appellant in the sum of $200 and that appellant be imprisoned in the county jail until said sum be paid or replevied or until he be released by due process of law. The only error assigned is the ruling on the motion for a new trial, and the only contention presented is that the court erred in its charge to the jury.

We have carefully considered all the instructions, and we find no reversible error therein. §700 Burns 1914, §658 R. S. 1881. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 N.E. 875, 73 Ind. App. 180, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tooley-v-state-indctapp-1920.