Minnesota Supreme Court, 1879

State v. Johnson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 30, 1879 · Berry

26 Minn. 316; 3 N.W. 982; 1879 Minn. LEXIS 252 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

James Hodgson and J. G. Stewart, for the State., W. W. Erwin and W. A. Foland, for defendant.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1915, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Provencher (Minn. 1915)
State v. Blakeley (Minn. 1901)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Berry, J,

The defendant was indicted for a rape committed upon a person called in the indictment Mary Kurkwiski. Upon the trial the evidence showed that the name of the person upon whom the offence was committed was pronounced as if written Kurkowski. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment. A motion for arrest of judgment was made, upon the ground of variance between the *317evidence and the indictment, as respected the name of the party injured. Without stopping to inquire whether, strictly speaking, this was a proper way in which to raise the objection, we are of opinion that the motion was well denied, upon the merits. It appears that the name is a Polish one. There is no evidence tending to show that, though pronounced .Kurkowski, it is not. properly spelled Kurkwiski. The courts of this state cannot take judicial notice of the proper orthography or pronunciation of names in the Polish language. There was, therefore, nothing before the court below, nor is there anything before this court, tending to show that there was any variance between the evidence and the indictment in the respect contended for.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.