Case Name: James Dolen, plaintiff in error, v. The State of Nebraska, defendant in error
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1884-01
Citations: 15 Neb. 405
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Dolen, plaintiff in error, v. The State of Nebraska, defendant in error.
Judges: The other judges concur.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
James Dolen, plaintiff in error, v. The State of Nebraska, defendant in error.
1. Affidavits in support of a motion for a new trial which are not embodied in the bill of exceptions, will not be considered by the supreme court.
2. Motion for New Trial. The supreme court will not consider questions occurring on the trial of a cause that have not been presented to the trial court by a motion for a new trial.
Error to the district court for Gage county. Tried below before Weaver, J.
Colby & Hazlett, for plaintiff in error.
Isaac Powers, Jr., Attorney General, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Reese, J.
At the April term, 1882, of the district court of Gage county an indictment was found against the plaintiff in error, who was a saloon keeper in Beatrice, charging him with unlawfully keeping the windows and doors of his place of business obstructed by a certain article known as ground glass. [Comp. Stat., § 29, chap. 50.] To this indictment the plaintiff in error plead "not guilty," and upon trial to a jury a verdict of guilty was rendered.
A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and a judgment entered fining the plaintiff in error twenty-five dollars. The case is brought into this court by petition in error.
The motion for a new trial is based solely on the ground of misconduct of the district attorney in directing the clerk of the court to call a certain juror (of the regular panel) while the jury was being impaneled. We find attached to the transcript the affidavit of a member of the bar of said county supporting said motion, and the affidavits of the district attorney and the clerk of the court fully disproving said charge. So that were the question submitted to this court we would have to decide that the motion for a new trial was properly overruled. But there is nothing to show that these affidavits were ever submitted to the trial court, as they are not embodied in the bill of exceptions and cannot be considered here. Ray v. Mason, 6 Neb., 101. Credit Foncier v. Rogers, 8 Neb., 34. Aultman v. Howe, 10 Neb., 8. Oliver v. Sheeley, 11 Neb., 521.
Other objections are urged by the plaintiff in error in his brief, but as none of them were presented to the trial court they cannot be considered here. Birdsall v. Carter, 11 Neb., 143.
We have examined the case with care and find the verdict of the jury fully sustained by the evidence. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
The other judges concur.