Case Name: STATE v. C. K. MAGESKE, DANIEL HAMMER and DAVID KIMMEL
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1924-06-24
Citations: 119 Or. 312
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. C. K. MAGESKE, DANIEL HAMMER and DAVID KIMMEL.
Judges: McBride, C. J., and Burnett and Coshow, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 312–320

Head Matter:
Submitted on motion to dismiss appeal June 24,
appeal dismissed July 29,
appeal reinstated September 23, 1924,
argued September 9,
affirmed in part and reversed in part September 21, 1926.
STATE v. C. K. MAGESKE, DANIEL HAMMER and DAVID KIMMEL.
(227 Pac. 1065; 249 Pac. 364.)
For the motion, Mr. I. H. Van Winkle, Attorney General, and Mr. L. Stipp, District Attorney.
No appearance contra.

Opinion:
McBride, C. J.
The defendants having been convicted of the crime of unlawfully possessing mash, wort and wash fit for distillation, attempted to appeal to this court. The notice of appeal was directed to and served upon the district attorney, but no notice was served upon the clerk of the court.
Section 1610, Or. L., provides that an appeal must be taken by service of a notice, in writing, on the clerk of the court where the judgment-roll is filed. Section 1611 provides that a similar notice must be served upon the district attorney for the county in which the judgment-roll is filed. In State v. Berger, 51 Or. 166 (94 Pac. 181), we held that the failure to serve notice upon the clerk rendered an attempted appeal void. The present is a parallel case, and, following our rule in that case, the appeal will be dismissed and judgment affirmed.
(249 Pac. 364.)
For appellants Mageske and Hammer there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. W. L. Cooper.
For appellants there was a brief over the name of Mr. Grant B. Dimmick.
For respondent there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. Livy S'tipp, District Attorney.
Appeal Dismissed.