Legal Opinion
State v. Spartz
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 17, 1918No. 20,826PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Defendant was indicted by the grand jury charged with a violation of chapter 4-63, Laws 1911', tried in the district court for Rice county before Childress, J., who overruled defendant’s demurrer to the complaint and certified to the supreme court that the questions thereby presented were doubtful and important.
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
The defendant was indicted for a violation of chapter 463, p. 764, Laws 1917. He demurred. The court, in overruling the demurrer, *204certified the questions thereby presented to be doubtful and important, thereby giving defendant an opportunity to review the order on appeal.
The offense is charged in the following language:
“The said Jake Spartz on the 20th day of October, A. D. 1917, at the village of Dundas in the County of Rice and State of Minnesota, did speak and use the following language to the witnesses hereinafter named and to others:
“ ‘Louis Seimers was wounded and should be dead long…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. KaercherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
- United States v. SchutteDistrict Court, D. North Dakota · 1918
- State v. LudemannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919