Schuster v. State

Appellant was tried and convicted of arson. The issue was whether or not appellant, in order to defraud a fire insurance company, had hired the prosecuting witness, Arthur Winger, to burn his hotel property. Trial by jury, finding appellant guilty as charged. Judgment of conviction was pronounced by the court.

Appellant seeks reversal on the ground that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial, by giving and refusing to give certain instructions.

1. The thirteenth instruction requested by the State and given by the court is as follows: “It has been provided by the Legislature…