Wyatt v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Wyatt v. State

1929 OK CR 78, 274 P. 1092, 42 Okla. Crim. 134, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 335

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 9, 1929

DocketNo. A-6564.

StatusPublished

This text of 1929 OK CR 78 (Wyatt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wyatt v. State, 1929 OK CR 78, 274 P. 1092, 42 Okla. Crim. 134, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 335 (Okla. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Kay county of assault and battery, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50'.

The record discloses that on the date charged defendant had an altercation with one Henrietta Kuder over the herd-lawing of some ducks on which he claimed a herd-law bill of $2.50. The prosecuting witness testified that when defendant served the notice of the damage claimed for the trespass of the ducks, he used abusive language and struck her, without any provocation on her part. Two of her children corroborated her rather fully. Defendant testified that upon the service of *135 the notice he was attacked by the prosecutrix and that he acted in his self-defense. He is corroborated rather fully by members of his family, and to some extent by the circumstances.

The evidence presents a controverted question of fact which was for the jury. No brief in support of the appeal has been filed and no appearance for oral argument made at the time the case was submitted. No fundamental error is apparent, and the evidence sustains the verdict.

The case is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Kay county of assault and battery, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50'.

The record discloses that on the date charged defendant had an altercation with one Henrietta Kuder over the herd-lawing of some ducks on which he claimed a herd-law bill of $2.50. The prosecuting witness testified that when defendant served the notice of the damage claimed for the trespass of the ducks, he used abusive language and struck her, without any provocation on her part. Two of her children corroborated her rather fully. Defendant testified that upon the service of *135 the notice he was attacked by the prosecutrix and that he acted in his self-defense. He is corroborated rather fully by members of his family, and to some extent by the circumstances.

The evidence presents a controverted question of fact which was for the jury. No brief in support of the appeal has been filed and no appearance for oral argument made at the time the case was submitted. No fundamental error is apparent, and the evidence sustains the verdict.

The case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK CR 78, 274 P. 1092, 42 Okla. Crim. 134, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wyatt-v-state-oklacrimapp-1929.