State v. Arthur
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Fayette District Gowrt. In June, 1863, defendant was indicted for the crime of “having in his possession at the same time five or more pieces of false and counterfeit money, &c.,” as defined by section 4261 of the Revision. At the October Term of that year he failed to appear, and his recognizance was declared forfeited.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Fayette District Gowrt. In June, 1863, defendant was indicted for the crime of “having in his possession at the same time five or more pieces of false and counterfeit money, &c.,” as defined by section 4261 of the Revision. At the October Term of that year he failed to appear, and his recognizance was declared forfeited. At what time or how this forfeiture was set aside does not appear; but in October, 1864, there was a trial, and the jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of having had in his possession five half dollars, four of them…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
3. criminal missaubr want of prosecution. In consonance with the provisions of the constitution, which secures to one charged with a public oifense a speedy as well as a public trial, our statute declares that, if his trial is not postponed * 0Jl own application, it must be brought on at the next regular term after the indictment is found; and, if not, it must be dismissed, unless good cause to the contrary be shown. Rev., $5,008. Was good cause shown in this case ? Of this we have no doubt.
He was tried at the first term after indictment found, save the one when he failed to appear, and'his…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. RedmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
3Cited by10 opinions
- Pines v. District CourtSupreme Court of Iowa · 1943
- State v. GLUSHKOOregon Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. RowleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Muir v. BlakeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.