TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Blackwell v. Burgett

City of Blackwell v. Henry Burgett.

City of Blackwell v. Burgett, 1917 OK CR 220, 166 P. 442
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 16, 1917
Docket
No. A-2575.
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
166 P. 4421917 OK CR 22014 Okla. Crim. 6821917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 176
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Summary
Appeal from County Court, Kay County; Joshua L. Robertson, Judge. Henry Burgett was convicted for violation of an ordinance of the City of Blackwell, and he appealed to the county court. Prom an order discharging the jury and dismissing the case, the City of Blackwell appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

In this court the city of Blackwell appeals, under provisions of section 6, ch. 147, Session Laws of 1915. The record shows that Henry Burgett was convicted in the police court of the city of Blackwell upon a complaint purporting to charge a violation of Ordinance No. 210 of said city by using indecent language, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $20 and $12.90 costs, from which judgment he appealed to the county court of Kay county.

The record shows that upon the trial of the case the city of Blackwell introduced as a witness one H. L. Moore, who was duly sworn as required by law, and after his name, address, and business were inquired about the defendant objected to the introduction of any further evidence, on the ground that the complaint was insufficient to charge an offense under said Ordinance No. 210, which objection was sustained. Thereupon the plaintiff offered to amend the complaint by striking out certain clauses and adding others.

The defendant’s objection to the proposed amendments was sustained by the court. Thereupon the court discharged the jury and dismissed the case. The record fails to disclose what particular question is reserved by the city, and no brief has been filed for plaintiff in error. E(owever, we are of the opinion that the police court of said city was *683 without jurisdiction to render the original judgment and sentence appealed from. See Ex parte Johnson, 13 Okla. Cr. 30 , 161 Pac. 1097 .

It follows that the appeal should be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1921: 21922: 11925: 119212026peak 1921 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ex Parte Johnson1921 OK CR 202, 201 P. 533
  2. Ex Parte Bochmann1921 OK CR 203, 201 P. 537
  3. Ex Parte Daugherty1922 OK CR 47, 204 P. 937
  4. Key v. City of Ardmore1925 OK CR 167, 234 P. 793

Most recent

  1. Key v. City of Ardmore1925 OK CR 167, 234 P. 793
  2. Ex Parte Daugherty1922 OK CR 47, 204 P. 937
  3. Ex Parte Bochmann1921 OK CR 203, 201 P. 537
  4. Ex Parte Johnson1921 OK CR 202, 201 P. 533

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ex Parte Johnson, 1917 OK CR 3, 161 P. 1097 34

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list