Case ID: ind_9/html/0178-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nutter v. The State.
    
      Monday, June 1.
    
    APPEAL from the Union Court of Common Pleas.
   Per Curiam.

This was a prosecution for selling lottery-tickets. There was a jury trial; verdict for the state; motion for a new trial overruled; and judgment on the verdict. In reference to the motion, the record contains the following averment: “And thereupon the defendant, by his attorney, moves for a new trial for reasons verbally stated to the Court.”

C. H. Test and N. Trusler, for the appellant.

J W. Gordon and D. C. Chipman, for the state.

The reasons should have been in writing. 2 R. S. p. 119, s. 355.

The record, after setting out certain testimony given on the trial, states as follows: “The whole testimony.”

This is insufficient to meet the requirements of rule 30 of this Court. 4 Ind. R. p. ix. The words “the whole testimony” do not repel the presumption of other evidence. Rader v. Barr, 7 Ind. R. 194. Moreover, no exception appears to have been taken to the rulings of the Court in any mode known to the law. There is, therefore, nothing in the record examinable in this Court .

The judgment is affirmed with costs. 
      
       See post, Jolly et al. v. The Terre Haute Bridge Co., and cases cited.