Primus v. State

•RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of “getting goods under false pretenses.”

Some of the written charges refused to defendant, we think, stated correct propositions of law, were not covered by other charges, and should have been given. Likewise we are of tl}e opinion that the court was in error in allowing the witness H. L. Kendig to testify as to “the last year his father was in charge of the Tillinghast land,” etc. It seems to us immaterial, and might have been injurious to defendant.

But we pretermit any further comment upon specific errors that may have been committed during…