Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Ind. 10

Newcome v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1866

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1866-11-15

<p>APPEAL from the Orange Common Pleas.</p>

Relies on Flinn v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1905

3 state decisions

1018661870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Erazer, J.

¶11. That ho affidavit against the defendant is filed with the information in a criminal case, is an objection which can only be reached by a motion below. It cannot be first made in this court.

¶22. An information alleging “that T. ET. is now confined in tbe jail of Orange county, Indiana, on a charge of grand larceny, tbe identical felony hereinafter set forth, and that he has not been indicted by any grand jury of said county for said crime; and that at tbe said county of Orange, on,” &c., u tbe said T. N. did feloniously steal, &c., one bay mare, *11of the value of |150, the personal property of one O. T.,” sufficiently charges the larceny, and shows the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas. In Flinn v. The State, 24 Ind. 286, the offense for which the defendant was imprisoned was very particularly described, but there was no averment that-he was guilty of that, or of any offense.

,7. II. Stotsenburg and T. M. Browne, for appellant.'D. F. Williamson, Attorney General, for the State.

¶3The foregoing propositions dispose of all the questions made in this ease.

¶4The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

/27/ind/10 · .json · Public domain