State v. Beckey
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Muscatine District Court. — Hon. Andrew Ho wat, Judge. From a judgment of the district court sustaining a motion to quash an indictment for a saloon nuisance, the plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtGranger, J.
I. At the drawing of the grand jury that found and returned, the indictment in this case, there were placed in the box provided for that purpose ninety-six, instead of seventy-five, names, as *369provided by the letter of the statute, and that fact is made a ground of the motion to quash; and, as the judgment of the district court must be affirmed on another ground of the motion, and, as the court might not be agreed on this question, we deem it inadvisable to consider it at the present time, and dismiss the point, with the suggestion that a substantial compliance with the provisions of the law…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. BrandtSupreme Court of Iowa · 1875
- State v. GillickSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
- State v. CarneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- State v. KnightSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
- State v. BowmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
3Cited by9 opinions
- Gibbons v. TerritoryCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1911
- State v. WetzelWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1914
- State ex rel. Murphy v. Superior Court for Whatcom CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- State v. BollnWyoming Supreme Court · 1902
- State v. PierceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1894
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.