Skip to main content

State v. Vance

Citations

  • 29 Wash. 435
  • 70 P. 34
  • 1902 Wash. LEXIS 606

Syllabus

<p>APPEAL-WHEN AFFIDAVIT INCORPORATED IN RECORD.</p> <p>Where a motion for continuance and an affidavit supporting it were filed as one paper, and the order of the court denying the motion expressly recites that the court had read the affidavit presented in support of the motion, the journal entry of the order would mate the affidavit a part' of the record, without the necessity of incorporating it by means of a hill of exceptions or a statement of facts.</p> <p>SAME — CHALLENGE TO JURY PANEL — WHEN PART OF RECORD.</p> <p>A written verified challenge to the panel of jurors, served upon the adverse party and filed in court, is properly a part of the transcript on appeal, without the necessity of being incorporated therein by hill of exceptions or statement of facts.</p> <p>SAME-SELECTION OF JURORS-RECORD ON APPEAL.</p> <p>All the proceedings regulating the selection of jurors under Laws 1901, p. 204, are a part of the general records of the superior court in each case tried by jury, and, by virtue of their nature and purpose, when properly, certified by the clerk of the superior court, will be considered on appeal, independent of any bill of exceptions or statement of facts.</p> <p>CONTINUANCE — SUFFICIENCY OF SHOWING.</p> <p>A motion for a continuance in a criminal case, on the ground that- the defendant did not have time to prepare for his trial and procure witnesses for his defense was properly denied where it appears from the record that there was a period of forty-one days between the commission of the crime and the date of trial, and more than a month between the dates of preliminary examination and trial; that defendant was represented by attorney during the whole of the time; that the scene of the crime was located thirty-five miles from the county seat, but in no way shown to be inaccessible; and where the affidavit for continuance failed to comply with the provisions of Bal. Code, § 6929, in, such matters, in that it did not give the names of any absent wit

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • striking down regulation that “substantially [ ] prohibited ... non-resident photographers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

56 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.