State v. Bliss
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Wright county, Vanderburgh, J., presiding. The affidavit referred to in the opinion, on- which an adjournment was granted by Justice Keeler, is thus stated in his docket: “ J. F. Dilley, counsel for the prosecution, sworn, says that he asks for a continuance of this cause, on the ground that a material witness is absent, and cannot be had, and that the said witness has been duly subpoenaed, and appeared before the…
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Wright county, Vanderburgh, J., presiding. The affidavit referred to in the opinion, on- which an adjournment was granted by Justice Keeler, is thus stated in his docket: “ J. F. Dilley, counsel for the prosecution, sworn, says that he asks for a continuance of this cause, on the ground that a material witness is absent, and cannot be had, and that the said witness has been duly subpoenaed, and appeared before the said Justice Kreis, and that Orrin Cross-man was duly notified to appear before me, this justice, on September 13,…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
This was a criminal action for assault and battery, commenced in Wright county, before Justice Kreis, who, on the defendant’s application, transferred it to Justice Keeler, by whom defendant was found guilty, and fined $10, and costs, and judgment entered against him for the fine and costs, in which were taxed up fees to witnesses for the prosecution, and that in default of payment he should stand committed to the common jail of Hennepin county for the term of ninety days. Defendant, giving a recognizance *460with sureties, took an appeal, upon the law alone, to the district court, where the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. HaasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Fulton v. State ex rel. MeinersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Watson v. WardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1880
- State v. HedstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951