Case Name: The State v. Quinn, (two cases.); The Same v. McKnight et al.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1884-04-24
Citations: 63 Iowa 396
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Quinn, (two cases.) The Same v. McKnight et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
The State v. Quinn, (two cases.) The Same v. McKnight et al.
1. Practice in Supreme Court: no errors assigned in criminal case: duty of court. In the absence of an assignment of errors or of argument in criminal cases, it is the duty of this court to examine tho record and render such judgment upon it as the law demands. Code, § 41)38. The court is not required, however, to imagine errors; and it', upon an examination of the record, nothing is found that strikes the mind as erroneous, the court is required to do nothing more than to an. nounce that fact.
Appeal from Marshall District Court.
Thursday, April 24.
The defendant in each case was separately indicted and convicted of the crime of nuisance in keeping and maintaining a saloon, and in selling therein intoxicating liquors. Each separately prosecutes an appeal in his case.
No appearance for appellants.
Smith McPherson, Attorney-general, for the State.

Opinion:
Beck, J.
No counsel appear for the defendants in these cases, and no assignment of error, or argument in any form, has been made in any one of them. In the absence of an assignment of error and of argument iu criminal cases, we are required to examine the record and render such judgment upon it as the law demands. Code, § 4538. See cases cited in Miller's Code. This we have done in the cases before us. A careful consideration of the record in each case reveals no errors demanding the reversal of the judgment of the district court.
In the absence of an assignment of error, and of argument, pointing out rulings and proceedings-complained of, we are not accustomed to enter upon a discussion of the case. Wc could not do this without imagining grounds of error, and thus discussing points which we could suppose might be made. All rulings and proceedings would necessarily be reviewed in this way by the consideration of every error which we could imagine might be urged; otherwise our review of the case would be only partial,
This would require a waste of time and labor. If, upon an examination of the record, however, we find nothing that strikes our minds as erroneous, we are required to do nothing more than to announce that fact. And, repeating the expression which we have before used in other cases, that we are not required to imagine errors in order to find points fo.r discussion, we are required to do nothing more than to announce that the judgment in this case must he
Affirmed.