Case Name: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Jennie Greenwald, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1918-06-19
Citations: 102 Wash. 593
Docket Number: No. 14650
Parties: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Jennie Greenwald, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
[No. 14650.
Department Two.
June 19, 1918.]
The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Jennie Greenwald, Appellant.
Criminal Law — Appeal — Failure to Prosecute — Diligence. Where an appeal from a conviction in Justice court was perfected in February, 1916, and not brought to trial for over a year, it is properly dismissed for want of diligence in prosecuting it.
Same—Appeal—Record. Proceedings not made a part of the record in a criminal appeal cannot be considered.
Appeal from an order of the superior court for King county, Smith, J., entered April 6, 1917, dismissing an appeal from a conviction in a justice court, for want of diligence.
Affirmed.
W. F. Van Ruff, for appellant.
Alfred H. Lundin and Frank P. Helsell, for respondent.
Reported in 173 Pac. 636.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
On December 14, 1915, the appellant, Jennie Greenwald, was convicted in justice court for King county of the crime of selling intoxicating liquor without a license. She took an appeal to the superior court. The transcript on appeal was filed on the 7th day of February, 1916. On the 23d day of March, 1917, the prosecuting attorney of King county filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the want of prosecution. The motion was granted.
We are not favored by a statement of facts, and being bound by the record as it is revealed in the transcript, the case falls squarely within, and is controlled by, State v. Buffum, 94 Wash. 25, 161 Pac. 832. Appellant insists that the court abused its discretion in dismissing the case for the reason that, prior to the time the motion to dismiss was filed by the prosecuting attorney, appellant had moved that the case be set down for trial. These proceedings are not made a part of the record and cannot be now considered.
Affirmed.