State v. Schoolcraft
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indictment by virtue of Y. S. 2703 and 2704. Those sections were not, however, in terms, referred to in the indictment. Heard on demurrer to the indictment, Washington County, September Term, 1899, Watson, J., presiding. The demurrer was overruled and the indictment adjudged sufficient. The respondent excepted, but, without prejudice to his exception, pleaded guilty. Judgment rendered on plea, sentence passed, and mittimus issued.
Read the full summary
Indictment by virtue of Y. S. 2703 and 2704. Those sections were not, however, in terms, referred to in the indictment. Heard on demurrer to the indictment, Washington County, September Term, 1899, Watson, J., presiding. The demurrer was overruled and the indictment adjudged sufficient. The respondent excepted, but, without prejudice to his exception, pleaded guilty. Judgment rendered on plea, sentence passed, and mittimus issued. The indictment set out, among other things, that at the September Term, 1896, of the Franklin County Court, the respondent’s lawful wife, Delia, was granted a…
1Opinion of the CourtMunson, J.
In the court below the respondent-claimed that the indictment was defective for the reason that “it did not particularly in terms refer to sections 2703 and 2701 of the Vermont Statutes,” and for the further reason that it did not set forth that the deci-ee of divorce remained in effect at the time of the cohabiting. These points are not now urged. The points which are urged were not made in the court below, and therefore cannot be considered.
Judgment that there is no error in the proceedings and that the respondent take nothing hy his exceptions.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cushman & Rankin Co. v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- State v. SargoodSupreme Court of Vermont · 1907
- Van Dyke v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- State v. MonteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916