Bubster v. State
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Clarkson, J. cited: Wharton, Criminal Evidence, secs. 623, 625, 632, 673, 862. cited, as to the constituents of larceny: Maxwell’s Crim. Proc., 360; 1 Bishop’s Grim. Law, 567; 2 Id., 758 and note 1; Chaplin v.I/ee, 18 Neb., 440; Mead v. State, 25 Id., 444. As to the confessions: 1 Roscoe, Crim.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Clarkson, J. cited: Wharton, Criminal Evidence, secs. 623, 625, 632, 673, 862. cited, as to the constituents of larceny: Maxwell’s Crim. Proc., 360; 1 Bishop’s Grim. Law, 567; 2 Id., 758 and note 1; Chaplin v.I/ee, 18 Neb., 440; Mead v. State, 25 Id., 444. As to the confessions: 1 Roscoe, Crim. Ev., 40, 42; 1 Phil., Ev., 397; Commonwealth v. Galligan, 113 Mass., 202; Smith v. State, 17 Neb., 358; State v. Grear, 29 Minn., 221; State v. Laliyer, 4 Id., 277 ; Priest v. State, 10 Neb., 393; Jones v. State, 13 Tex., 168;…
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
The plaintiff in error was informed against in the district court of Douglas county for the larceny of a buggy of the value of $75, and on the trial found guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for one year.
The sole question in this court is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The buggy, it seems, was found at a paint shop in the city of Omaha, and it is claimed the plaintiff in error took the buggy there to be painted, and that it had been taken feloniously without the owner’s consent.
There are two serious objections to this verdict. First: The owner of…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Rema v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- State v. ThomasSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- Johns v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1910
- State v. BjelkstromSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1905
- Chezem v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.