Case ID: ind-app_90/html/0280-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Enloe, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McGlynn v. State of Indiana.
    [No. 13,945.
    Filed November 14, 1929.]
    
      Joseph T. Markey, for appellant.
    
      Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General, and Edward J. Lennon, Jr., Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
   Enloe, J.

Martha Swarat, Hattie Weakly, Bessie Shaw, Marie McGlynn and Ray Mitchell were indicted by the grand jury of Marion county upon a charge of conspiracy to steal merchandise. The defendants, Swarat, McGlynn and Mitchell each pleaded not guilty. From a finding by the court of “guilty as charged,” separate appeals have been prosecuted, the error assigned heréin being the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. We have searched the brief of appellant in vain to find her motion for a new trial. Under the third subdivision of said brief, “How the issues were decided and what the judgment was,” we find the following: “The defendant, Marie McGlynn, thereupon filed a motion for a new trial (Rec. pp. 12, 13, 14), which motion was, by the court, overruled (Rec. p. 15)”; and, under the fifth subdivision of said brief, “The Record,” we find the following: “Motion for a new trial is overruled and to which ruling the defendant by counsel excepts. (See Rec. L. 1 & 2 p. 15).” It follows that the brief is insufficient to present any question, State, ex rel., v. Birden (1918), 187 Ind. 466, 119 N. E. 865; Buser, Comptroller, v. State, ex rel. (1928), 200 Ind. 115, 161 N. E. 825; State, ex rel., v. Hinds, Trustee (1929), 200 Ind. 613, 165 N. E. 754.

Affirmed.