State v. Douglass

Supreme Court of Kansas
State v. Douglass, 72 Kan. 673 (Kan. 1905)
83 P. 621; 1905 Kan. LEXIS 396

State v. Douglass

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

An information, otherwise sufficient, presented, signed and sworn to by the county attorney, is not vulnerable to a motion to quash because the clerk of the district court, who administered the oath, after naming the county, omitted to follow such name with the word “county.”

The denying of an application to delay a trial until a party might present affidavits showing what absent witnesses would testify, not excepted to, cannot be considered by this court. In the present case no exceptions were taken to the denying of the application.

The judgment is affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
The State of Kansas v. Frank Douglass
Status
Published
Syllabus
1. Information — Motion to Quash. The omission of the word “county” in the title of the officer before whom it was verified did not make the information subject to a motion to quash. 2. Practice, Supreme Court — Continuance—Review. The denial of an application to delay a trial on account of absent witnesses, not éxcepted to, was held not reviewable.