Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Curtis

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 12, 1888Published

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Becker county, Sleeper, J., presiding, (before whom, acting for a judge of the 14th district, the trial was had,) refusing a new trial.

1Dissent

Mitchell, J.,

(dissenting.) The universal rule at common law is that, in an indictment for forgery, the writing must be set out accord-' ing either to its tenor or its import; so that it will appear that it was such as, if true, would be of some legal efficacy, and that the court may see whether it be such as it is alleged to be, and whether it falls within the act or law on which the prosecution is founded. This court has heretofore recognized this rule. State v. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 70, (98;) State v. Riebe, 27 Minn. 315, (7 N. W. Rep. 262.) In the indictment in the present ease, while the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. RiebeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1880

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API