State v. Preston
Citations
- 4 Idaho 215
- 38 P. 694
- 1894 Ida. LEXIS 46
Syllabus
<p>Vagrancy — Information—Sufficiency of Allegation. — Under subdivision 31, section 2230 of the Revised Statutes, and subdivision 25, section 69, Second Session Daws of 1893, page 116, an information for vagrancy which alleges, “that the defendant, Prank A. Preston, on the sixth day of May, 1894, and for three weeks prior thereto, at Pocatello in the county of Bannock and state of Idaho, unlawfully roamed and unlawfully has roamed about from place to place without any lawful business, willfully, and unlawfully was, has been and continues to be, and still is an idle and dissolute person, who wanders and roams about the streets of said city at late and unusual hours of the night, has continued to be and still is an idle and dissolute person who lives and has lived in and about houses of ill-fame there situated,” is sufficient.</p> <p>Ordinances — Municipal Corporations. — Municipal corporations may pass ordinances for the punishment of and may punish for the same acts as are punishable under the Penal Code, when authorized so to do by the law under which such towns and villages are organized.</p> <p>Verdict — Sufficiency of — Held, that the following verdict was sufficient to sustain the judgment, to wit: “We, the jury, in the above-entitled cause, find the defendant guilty of being a vagrant at the time charged in the complaint.”</p> <p>Verdict — Form of. — The form of said verdict did not prejudice or tend to prejudice the defendant in any substantial right; hence, should not be held invalid because of any surplusage it contains.</p> <p>Objections. — An objection that does not point out or allege the ground of such objection will not be considered.</p> <p>Instructions.- — When only a part of the charge to the jury is contained in the record, an exception to that part on the ground that it fails to instruct on the question of “reasonable doubt” will not be considered, unless the record shows that the part of the charge omitted from the record failed to instruct upon
Judges: Huston, Morgan, Sulliyan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- In re SicCalifornia Supreme Court· 1887-07-14· cited 66×
- McPherson v. Village of ChebanseIllinois Supreme Court· 1885-05-15· cited 33×
- State v. ClarkIdaho Supreme Court· 1894-02-05· cited 28×
- State v. BergmanOregon Supreme Court· 1877-12-15· cited 26×
- State v. ReedIdaho Supreme Court· 1894-01-12· cited 23×
- People v. McGregarCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-02-28· cited 21×
- People v. WheatleyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-02-25· cited 18×
- Greenwood v. StateTennessee Supreme Court· 1873-04-15· cited 14×
- Hazard v. ColeIdaho Supreme Court· 1869-01-15· cited 13×
- People v. FerrisCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 10×
- Ex parte McCarthyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1887-05-31· cited 10×
- Lowe v. TurnerIdaho Supreme Court· 1867-01-15· cited 9×
- White v. Abernathy, Clark & Co.California Supreme Court· 1853-10-15· cited 8×
- People v. HerseyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1879-07-01· cited 8×
- People v. BeelerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1856-07-01· cited 7×
- Goodman v. Minear Mining & Milling Co.Idaho Supreme Court· 1867-01-15· cited 4×
- Kellum v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1886-10-15· cited 3×
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.