Van Haltren v. State
This text of 124 N.W. 1039 (Van Haltren v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The plaintiff in error was convicted of the-crime of larceny, and from a judgment entered upon the verdict of guilty he prosecutes a writ of error in this court. The sole ground relied upon for a reversal of such judgment is that the evidence was not sufficient to support tire verdict.. “If there is any credible evidence which in any reasonable view supports a verdict it cannot be disturbed on appeal.” Lam Yee v. State, 132 Wis. 527, 529, 112 N. W. 425, and cases cited. A careful examination of the testimony convinces us that there is sufficient evidence in the record to-support the verdict, having in mind the rule quoted. No useful purpose would be served by summarizing- such evidence in this opinion. .
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
124 N.W. 1039, 142 Wis. 143, 1910 Wisc. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-haltren-v-state-wis-1910.