State v. Fay
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Bunn, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a trial and conviction of the crime of swindling.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
Evans, Cartney, and Fay, this appellant, were jointly indicted under the provisions of G. S. 1891, § 6595, the day of the offense being fixed on October 26, 1901. The latter demanded a separate trial, and stands convicted. Upon appeal several points are made by his counsel, and such of them as are deemed worthy of mention are taken up seriatim.
1. It is contended that the court below abused its discretion by refusing defendant’s motion for a continuance, made at the beginning of the trial. Before any testimony was received, his counsel stated to the court that they were advised that another…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. HuberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
- In Re Welfare of T. D. F.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Donea v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- State v. BellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
- Krahn v. J. L. Owens Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1917