State v. Claire
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was convicted in the municipal court of Minneapolis of violating an ordinance of that city. The facts are stated in the opinion. Defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial was denied, O. L. Smith, J. From the order denying a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Per curiam
The appellant was convicted in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis of having violated that provision of the city ordinance which reads as follows: “Nor shall any person in any public place * * * speak any indecent, lewd, or immoral language.” She made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and she appeals to this court from the order denying it.
To constitute the offense defined in the ordinance, the “language” must have been spoken in a public place. The complaint reads: “That on the 31st day of May, 1912, at the city of Minneapolis, Hennepin county, Minnesota, the defendant…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- State ex rel. Sheehy v. BatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905