State v. Spiker
State of Iowa v. F. W. Spiker
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Deemer, J.—
Defendant is charged with having altered a cheek, which was given him hy one Herstein, from “ Six and 90/100 ” to “ Sixteen and 90/100 Dollars.” There was testimony tending to show such alteration, although defendant denied it; and the verdict has ample support in the evidence. To review the testimony is not our custom, and there is no reason for departing from that rule in this instance. The trial court, over defendant’s objection, admitted the testimony of one Scharf, to the effect that he (defendant) admitted that he had “put.on a little” on the check. The ruling was manifestly correct.
No error appears, and the judgment is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.