Legal Opinion

State v. Winstandley

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 1898No. 18,373PublishedCited by 20 opinions

From the Clark Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtMonks, C. J.

Appellee was indicted, tried, and acquitted of the charge of embezzlement. The indictment was based upon section 2031, Burns’ R. S. 1894 (Acts 1891, p. 395). The State has appealed, and has assigned numerous errors, calling in question the action of the court in giving and refusing to give instructions. So far as the record shows, the court was not requested to instruct the jury in writing, nor is it shown that all the instructions given were in writing. Bills of exceptions containing instructions given by the court, as well as instructions requested by appellant, which the court refused to…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Wenning v. TeepleIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Cooper v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Musgrave v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. NoftsgerIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Siberry v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1895

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Board of Commissioners v. GibsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Chicago, Indiana & Eastern Railway Co. v. Wysor Land Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. HollandIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
  4. McCaslin v. Advance Manufacturing Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Martin v. MarksIndiana Supreme Court · 1900

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API