Case ID: neb_56/html/0556-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ragan, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles C. Stevens v. State of Nebraska.
    Filed November 3, 1898.
    No. 10320.
    Questions for Review: Stare Deoisis. It appearing, after a careful examination, that the record brought here presents no proposition of law which has not been settled by the repeated decisions of this court, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, without an opinion specifically stating the contentions of the plaintiff in error and our reasons for overruling them.
    Error to the district court for Sheridan county. Tried below before Westover, J.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      B. G. Noleman and J. II. Edmunds, for plaintiff in error.
    
      G. J. Smyth, Attorney General, and Ed P. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, for the state.
   Ragan, C.

Charles C. Stevens files here a petition in error for the review of a judgment pronounced against him by the district court. of Sheridan county on an information charging him with stealing cattle. 'Stevens complains that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence; that the court erred in rejecting certain testimony offered by him; in not granting him a new trial on the ground’s of newly discovered evidence; and because one of the jurors ivas disqualified, because he admitted on his voir clire examination that he had an opinion as to the merits of the case which it would require evidence to remove. We have patiently and carefully studied and examined this record, and not one of the contentions made Jby the plaintiff in error can be sustained. The record presents not one proposition of law which is novel and which has not been time and again decided by this court, and it would subserve no useful purpose whatsoever to write an’ opinion .specifically stating the contentions of the plaintiff in error and our reasons for overruling them. The judgment of the district court is right and is

Affirmed.