Case ID: kan_72/html/0673-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State of Kansas v. Frank Douglass.
    No. 14,370.
    (83 Pac. 621.)
    1. Information — Motion to Quash. The omission of the word “county” in the title of the officer before whom it was verified did not make the information subject to a motion to quash.
    2. Practice, Supreme Court — Continuance—Review. The denial of an application to delay a trial on account of absent witnesses, not éxcepted to, was held not reviewable.
    Appeal from Cherokee district court; William B. Glasse, judge.
    Opinion filed November 11, 1905.
    Affirmed.
    
      C. C. Coleman, attorney-general, Al. F. Williams, county attorney, and H. C. Finch, deputy, for The State.
    
      Ira Heaton, and W. R. Cowley, for appellant.
   Per Curiam:

An information, otherwise sufficient, presented, signed and sworn to by the county attorney, is not vulnerable to a motion to quash because the clerk of the district court, who administered the oath, after naming the county, omitted to follow such name with the word “county.”

The denying of an application to delay a trial until a party might present affidavits showing what absent witnesses would testify, not excepted to, cannot be considered by this court. In the present case no exceptions were taken to the denying of the application.

The judgment is affirmed.