State v. Axt
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Lee District Court. Indictment for selling intoxicating liquors by the glass or dram. The indictment was properly indorsed by the foreman of the grand jury, and -was marked filed by the clerk. There was, however, no indorsement to the effect, that it was “presented to the court by the foreman in the presence of the grand jury.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Lee District Court. Indictment for selling intoxicating liquors by the glass or dram. The indictment was properly indorsed by the foreman of the grand jury, and -was marked filed by the clerk. There was, however, no indorsement to the effect, that it was “presented to the court by the foreman in the presence of the grand jury.” The defendant moved the court to quash the indictment, for the reason that it did not appear from the indorsement of the clerk thereon, that the same was “ presented to the court by their foreman in the presence of the grand jury.” This motion was…
1Opinion of the CourtStockton, J.
— We do not think that such an indorsement was essential to the validity of the indictment, or that the want of it, was a good reason for quashing it. The Code, (section 2914), requires that “ an indictment, when found by the grand jury, and indorsed £a true bill,’ by the foreman, must be presented to the court by the foreman, in their presence, and marked £ filed,’ by the clerk.” Under a provision somewhat similar, in the act of 1839, (Rev. *513Stat. ,152, section 34), it was held by this court, in the case of The State v. Glover, 3 G. Greene, 249, that the omission of the clerk to indorse upon…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. ShepardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- State of Iowa v. Nicholas CagleCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 2019
- State v. JollySupreme Court of Iowa · 1858