State v. Friedman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
William Friedman, indicted with others by the grand jury of Ramsey county charged with the crime of swindling, was tried separately in the district court for that county before Hanft, J., and a jury which returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Lees, C.
William F. Friedman of St. Paul, his wife, and Jacob Halpem, Morris Gilman and John Berman, were indicted, charged with having obtained $1,000 from one Mirsky by a swindling device. Friedman was tried separately and convicted, and appeals from an order denying a new trial.
TTík principal contention is that Edward Paul, the chief witness for the state, fabricated the story he related on the witness stand, and that the evidence, as a whole, is insufficient to justify a conviction. Mirsky *375was swindled out of $1,000 in February, 1918, by Gilman and Berman. The device used consisted of two…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. MonroeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- State v. FitchetteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- State v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
- State v. EttenbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- State v. SheltreySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. SweeneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- State v. GulbrandsenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
- State v. DePauwSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Albrecht v. RathaiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- State v. KiewelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.