United States v. Langford
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from Third District Court, Bingham County.. The court had no jurisdiction to try this cause, as the indictment shows that the offense charged was committed in Bear Lake, instead of Bingham county, and this court takes notice that Blaekfoot is in Bingham county.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Third District Court, Bingham County.. The court had no jurisdiction to try this cause, as the indictment shows that the offense charged was committed in Bear Lake, instead of Bingham county, and this court takes notice that Blaekfoot is in Bingham county. (U. S. Rev. Stats., secs. 1910, 1914; Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434; Reynolds v. !United States, 98 U. S. 145; Miles v. United States, 103 U. S. 304.) Consent to a wrong is not given by silence in a criminal case. (People v. Dich, 37 Gal. 277; People v. Beeler, 6 Cal. 247; People v. Payne, 8 Cal. 344; People v. Demint,…
1Dissent
BERRY, J.,
Dissenting. — This case comes up on a bill of exceptions. The evidence given in the court below is not brought up. Whenever, therefore, the lawfulness of proceeding upon the trial depends on the evidence given at the trial, the presumption is that the requisite evidence was given. The majority of the court think there were two instances of error on the trial: 1. In the charge of the court to the jury; and 2. In allowing evidence of repute in the family and community where the defendant resided, as to the nature of the relations of the •defendant with the woman in question, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Scott v. LloydSupreme Court of the United States · 1835
- Tarpley v. Poage's Adm'rTexas Supreme Court · 1847
- Keenan v. HaydenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876