Case Name: Cain v. Coffin, Sheriff
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1918-10-29
Citations: 187 Ind. 578
Docket Number: No. 23,226
Parties: Cain v. Coffin, Sheriff.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 187
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
Cain v. Coffin, Sheriff.
[No. 23,226.
Filed October 29, 1918.]
Habeas Corpus. — Review.—Briefs.—On appeal from an order denying habeas corpus, where the assignments of error relate only to the, overruling of exceptions to the -return, the sustaining of a demurrer to the answer, and the overruling of a motion to modify the final order, the appellant’s brief which fails to set out the defendant’s return, the paragraph of answer demurred to, the petition for the writ, or the motion to modify, is insufficient to present any question for review.
From Marion Superior Court (104,861) ; Richard M. Coleman, Special Judge.
Application by Emory J. Cain for writ of habeas corpus against George V. Coffin, sheriff. From an order denying the writ, the petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Joseph K. Brown and John Browder, for appellant.
Groninger, Groninger & Groninger, for appellee.

Opinion:
Lairy, J.
— This was a proceeding before the Marion Superior Court for a writ of habeas corpus. It appears from the record that appellant had been arrested upon a warrant issued by the Marion County Juvenile Court and was held by appellee, as sheriff of Marion county, in default of recognizance bond.
Appellant's assignments of error relate only to the action of the court in overruling his exceptions to the return of appellee, in sustaining appellee's demurrer to his second paragraph of answer, and in overruling his motion to modify the final order of the court.
Appellant fails to set out in his brief a complete copy, or the substance, of either the return of appellee, or the second paragraph of appellant's answer. Neither does he set out a copy, nor the substance, of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, nor his motion to piodify the final order of the court. For this reason the, brief is not sufficient to present any question for the consideration of the court. Clause 5, Rule 22 of this court.
Judgment affirmed.
Note. — Reported in 120 N. E. 597.