Warren v. State
Tennessee Supreme Court
PROM HAMILTON. Circuit Court, July Term, 1871. John B. Hoyl, J., presiding. The record showed that “the defendant, by attorney, filed the following reasons in arrest of judgment, to wit: 1st. The presentment does not charge that the whispering, laughing, talking, and other acts of rude and indecent behavior, were done at or near the place of worship;” and that the same were overruled, &c. cited State v. Doty, 5 Cold., 34. insisted that Doty’s case was decided upon the idea…
Read the full summary
PROM HAMILTON. Circuit Court, July Term, 1871. John B. Hoyl, J., presiding. The record showed that “the defendant, by attorney, filed the following reasons in arrest of judgment, to wit: 1st. The presentment does not charge that the whispering, laughing, talking, and other acts of rude and indecent behavior, were done at or near the place of worship;” and that the same were overruled, &c. cited State v. Doty, 5 Cold., 34. insisted that Doty’s case was decided upon the idea that the words “at or near,” were restrictive in their character, when, in fact, they were intended to enlarge the…
1Opinion of the CourtDeaderick, J.
At the March Term, 1871, of the Circuit Court of Hamilton county, the plaintiffs in error were presented for disturbing religious worship. They were convicted at the July Term, 1871, of the court, and motions for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, were severally made and overruled, and they appealed in error to this court.
It is insisted that the judgment and verdict should be set aside, as they are not sustained by the evidence.
While it is true that there is some apparent conflict in the testimony, there is evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the jury had the opportunity of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- City of Nashville v. VaughnTennessee Supreme Court · 1929