State v. Munch
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The defendant was arraigned in the district court for Eamsey county, which constitutes the second judicial district, upon two indictments, each entitled, “State of Minncsota, County of Eamsey, District Court, First Judicial District.”
Read the full summary
The defendant was arraigned in the district court for Eamsey county, which constitutes the second judicial district, upon two indictments, each entitled, “State of Minncsota, County of Eamsey, District Court, First Judicial District.” The first indictment is as follows : “ Emil Munch is accused, by the grand jury of the county of Eamsey and state of Minnesota, by this indictment, of the crime of embezzlement of public money, exceeding in amount the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, committed as follows : The said Emil Munch, on the fifth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
To sustain the demurrers to these two indictments, it is claimed that the name of the court is not properly specified. The indictments are entitled, “State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, District Court, First Judicial District.” The defect alleged is in the designation of “first” instead of “ second ” judicial district. The number of the district is no part of the title of the court, for in the only instances in which the statutes formally name the court the number of the district is not used. Gen. St. ch. 107, § 53; ch. 108, § 2; ch. 109, § 6. When used it is only surplusage, and may be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People v. McKinneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by30 opinions
- Bartley v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- Agar v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1911
- State v. HowardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- State v. EnsleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1912
- Sherrick v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.