White v. Territory of Oklahoma

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

White v. Territory of Oklahoma

1901 OK 50, 65 P. 835, 11 Okla. 172, 1901 Okla. LEXIS 23

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 6, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1901 OK 50 (White v. Territory of Oklahoma) 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

White v. Territory of Oklahoma, 1901 OK 50, 65 P. 835, 11 Okla. 172, 1901 Okla. LEXIS 23 (Okla. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Bureord, C. J.:

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the district court of Noble county for the crime of burglary in the second degree, and sentenced to serve a term of 5 years in the penitentiary. The judgment and sentence was entered on December 30, 1899. No brief has been filed and we are not advised what the plaintiff in error complains of, or relies upon for a reversal. In eases of this kind, we do not consider it the duty of this court to go into a careful examination of the evidence to determine whether or not the trial court erred in the admission or rejection of testimony. We have examined the indictment, the instructions of the court and the judgment and sentence, and we have discovered no error which will warrant a reversal of the judgment.

*173 The judgment of the district court of Noble county is in all things affirmed, at the cost of the plaintiff in error.

Hainer, J., who presided in the court below, not sitting; all the other Justices concurring.

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

Opinion of the court by

Bureord, C. J.:

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the district court of Noble county for the crime of burglary in the second degree, and sentenced to serve a term of 5 years in the penitentiary. The judgment and sentence was entered on December 30, 1899. No brief has been filed and we are not advised what the plaintiff in error complains of, or relies upon for a reversal. In eases of this kind, we do not consider it the duty of this court to go into a careful examination of the evidence to determine whether or not the trial court erred in the admission or rejection of testimony. We have examined the indictment, the instructions of the court and the judgment and sentence, and we have discovered no error which will warrant a reversal of the judgment.

*173 The judgment of the district court of Noble county is in all things affirmed, at the cost of the plaintiff in error.

Hainer, J., who presided in the court below, not sitting; all the other Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1901 OK 50, 65 P. 835, 11 Okla. 172, 1901 Okla. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-territory-of-oklahoma-okla-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack