State v. Williams
Supreme Court of Iowa
Ap'péál from, Dubuque District Oo'wrt. This was originally an action upon an indictment for the larceny of certain money. The defendant was acquitted, but the case was retained upon the docket for the purpose of trying the title to , the money which had been taken upon a search’warrant, and which was alleged to'be the subject of the larceny.
Read the full summary
Ap'péál from, Dubuque District Oo'wrt. This was originally an action upon an indictment for the larceny of certain money. The defendant was acquitted, but the case was retained upon the docket for the purpose of trying the title to , the money which had been taken upon a search’warrant, and which was alleged to'be the subject of the larceny. There was a trial to a jury, and a verdict was rendered in these words: “We the jury find the money ($290) in question to be the property of W. H. II. Miller.” The court then made an order that the clerk of the court (who had the money in custody) pay the…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
— The question presented in this case pertains merely to a civil right. - The attorney general expresses doubt as to his duty to appear in the case, but has thought best, out of caution, to do so.
A correct understanding of the question requires a somewhat fuller statement of-the facts. ■ ■ The Search warrant upon *518wliicb the money was taken was issued at the instance of Miller, the claimant of the money and prosecuting witness in the case. The charge against the defendant was that she came into possession of the money by finding, and unlawfully appropriated the same to her own use, and thereby…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Haworth v. NewellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Blew v. PowersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1965
- Supulver v. Gilchrist & Dawson, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1922
- Pioneer Mining Co. v. TibergDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1913
- State v. RaglandSupreme Court of Kansas · 1951
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.