Case Name: Weidenhammer v. State of Indiana
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1918-12-10
Citations: 181 Ind. 349
Docket Number: No. 22,438
Parties: Weidenhammer v. State of Indiana.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 181
Pages: 349–352

Head Matter:
Weidenhammer v. State of Indiana.
[No. 22,438.
Filed December 10, 1918.
Rehearing denied March 20, 1914.]
1. Criminal Daw. — Appeal.—Presenting Questions for Review.— Ruling on Motion for Peremptory Instruction. — The ruling on a motion for a peremptory instruction to return a verdict of acquittal cannot be made the basis of an independent assigment of error on appeal, but should be presented as ground for a new trial, p. 350.
2. Appeal.— Questions Revi&wa'ble.— Briefs.— Sufficiency. — Appellant’s brief, containing under “points and authorities” many abstract statements of law and citations of authorities without indicating what relation or bearing any of them have to the questions attempted to be presented, and without attempting to fit any of them to any ruling of the trial court, does not comply with clause 5 of Rule 22 and is therefore insufficient to present any question for review, p. 350.
8. Adultery. — Evidence.—Sufficiency.—Positive proof is not essential, to a conviction for adultery, but the evidence is sufficient if it establishes facts and circumstances from which guilt may be inferred, and which will satisfy a rational and just man beyond a reasonable doubt, p. 351.
4. Adultery.— Evidence.— Qircumsta/nces.— Sufficiency. — The test of the sufficiency of circumstances to support a verdict of guilty in a prosecution for adultery is, that the facts which the jury accepted as proved can be reasonably accounted for on no other hypothesis than the defendant’s guilt, that with the theory of his guilt they are harmonious and consistent, and that they point to it so clearly and distinctly as to satisfy the jury of it beyond a Reasonable doubt, .p. 351.
Prom Warren Circuit Court; Burton B. Berry, Judge.
Prosecution by tbe State of Indiana against George Weidenhammer. From a judgment of conviction, tbe defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Charles B. Milford, for appellant.
Thomas M. Honan, Attorney-General, and Thomas H. Branaman, for tbe State.

Opinion:
Cox, J.
Appellant was charged by indictment with adultery, tried by a jury and convicted. On appeal here from the judgment he has assigned two errors: (1) Overruling his motion for a new trial; (2) overruling his motion to instruct the jury peremptorily to return a verdict of acquittal. The second alleged error is not well assigned. It is matter properly made cause in a motion for a new trial. It cannot be made the basis of an independent assignment of error on appeal. Appellant's motion for a new trial sets up twenty causes. Under the head of "Points and Authorities" appellant's brief contains many abstract statements of law and citations of authorities having more or less relation to the crime of adultery, but in this part of the brief it is nowhere indicated what relation to or bearing on any of the several causes for a new trial any of these points and authorities have. No attempt is made to fit any of these statements to any particular ruling of the court. This is not a compliance with clause 5 of Rule 22 of the rules of this court which requires the propositions or points and authorities to be stated under a separate heading of each error relied on. "Mere abstract statements of law, or fact, or both, unless applied specifically to some particular ruling or action of the court, although contained in appellant's statement of points, present no question." Leach v. State (1912) , 177 Ind. 234, 97 N. E. 792. See, also, Michael v. State (1912), 178 Ind. 676, 99 N. E. 788; Anderson v. State (1913) , 179 Ind. 590, 101 N. E. 84, and cases there cited.
Judgment affirmed.