State v. Clements
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was convicted in the district court for Houston county of grand larceny in tbe first degree. From an order, Kingsley, J., .denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtLovely, J.
Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in tbe first degree, under G. S. 1894, § 6709, subd. 1, wbicb embodies in tbe penal code of tbis state tbe elements of tbe crime commonly designated as “obtaining property under false pretenses.” Defendant moved for a new trial. Tbis motion was denied, from wbicb order be *449appeals, assigning numerous errors, all of which have been considered in a careful examination of the entire record; but, upon the view which we have taken of this case, we do not consider it necessary to dispose' of any other question than the sufficiency of the indictment to state a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. HowardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- State v. WilesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1880
- State v. CodySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Utley v. ClementsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. QuackenbushSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- State v. BriggsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- State v. KorschSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- State v. ChristiansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- State v. MacDonaldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.