Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Arndt

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 1946Published

1Dissent

Fairchild,- J.

-(dissenting). In disagreeing with the majority I do not propose to urge that, using very general terms, substantial justice may not have resulted from the proceedings under consideration in spite of the fact that I consider serious ' error has occurred.

There did come into the case suggestions of other acts which had no bearing upon and certainly were not material matters to be considered by the jury in passing upon the charge of for-' gery of an “accountable receipt.” My dissent relates to the use of the charge of forgery when the offense committed, if any, consisted of making…

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