State v. Chapman
Citations
- 1 S.D. 414
- 10 L.R.A. 432
- 47 N.W. 411
- 1890 S.D. LEXIS 49
Syllabus
<p>1. When an application is made lor a change of the trial judge, as provided in Sess. Laws 1890, e. 78, '£ 20, on account of bias and prejudice, the party making the application must establish such facts and circumstances, by affidavit or other extrinsic testimony, as clearly shows the extrinsic of bias and prejudice on the part of the judge against the defendant as to raise a strong presumption that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had before such judge. It must be of such a showing, and strong enough to overthrow the presumption in favor of the integrity of the trial judge, before a change will be made.</p> <p>2. The extent to which a party should be allowed to go on the examination of a person called as a juror, is not and cannot well he governed by any fixed rules. Much rests in the discretion of the court as to what questions may or may not be answered; but in practice very great latitude is and generally ought to be indulged.</p> <p>3. The decision of the trial judge on the question of indifference of a juror, or for actual bias, is not reviewable in this court, except in the absence of any evidence to support it, in which case it is an error of law to which an exception lies.</p> <p>4. A general and vague assignment of an error will not bo considered by this court. A party complaining of error mu st specify it with precision. It should be specific and explicit, so that by looking at the grounds stated the court can at once see how, when, and where the error arises, and whether it is well or ill taken.</p> <p>5. All places where intoxicating liquors are sold, bartered, or given away in violation of law, also all places where persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors as a beverage, and also all places where intoxicating liquors are kept for sale or delivery in violation of lgw, whether they are sold, bartered, or delivered, or not, are common nuisances, under Sess. Laws 1890, c. 101, § 13. It is the illegal sale, or
Judges: Bennett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Cook v. Marshall CountySupreme Court of Iowa· 1903-02-02· cited 41×
- State v. FlackSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1958-03-31· cited 29×
- Benito Quintana v. J. W. Holland, District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Philadelphia, PaThird Circuit· 1958-05-23· cited 25×
- Speers v. SpeersSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 2008-02-26· cited 21×
- In Re JostCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1953-04-20· cited 13×
- State v. PickeringSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1976-09-22· cited 13×
- State v. HallSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1902-07-02· cited 12×
- State v. WinchesterNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1909-11-05· cited 11×
- Seubert v. Fawick Tractor Co.South Dakota Supreme Court· 1915-10-18· cited 8×
- State ex rel. Bartlett v. FraserNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1891-02-04· cited 7×
- Guckenheimer v. SellersU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina· 1897-08-06· cited 5×
- State v. JohnsSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1910-05-24· cited 4×
- Waterloo Gasoline Engine Co. v. O'NeillNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1910-01-24· cited 2×
- Jost v. United States Department of LaborCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1953-04-20· cited 1×
- State v. RodwaySouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1891-02-11· cited 1×
- State ex rel. Wilberg v. McNaughtonSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1924-05-23· cited 1×
- State v. ClevelandSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1909-05-21
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.