From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Perry

Court of Appeal of California, Third District
Aug 8, 1911
16 Cal.App. 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911)

Opinion

Crim. No. 153.

August 8, 1911.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Nevada County, and from an order denying a new trial. Geo. L. Jones, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Fred Searles, for Appellant.

U.S. Webb, Attorney General, and J. Charles Jones, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.


The defendant was convicted of the crime of obtaining from one Ed. Arthur the sum of $500 by false and fraudulent representations and pretenses.

The appeal to this court is from the judgment and the order denying defendant's motion for a new trial.

No brief has been filed in behalf of the defendant, and, therefore, if there were errors made in the trial of the cause which would merit special consideration by this court, we have not been apprised of them.

This court is not required, in the absence of special assignments, in some form, of alleged error, to search the record for the purpose of determining whether the trial in the court below was in all respects conducted without prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused.

We have, however, taken the pains to carefully read the stenographer's transcription of the testimony, and we have from such investigation discovered no reason for questioning its sufficiency to justify and support the verdict.

The judgment and order are, accordingly, affirmed.

Burnett, J., and Chipman, P. J., concurred.


Summaries of

People v. Perry

Court of Appeal of California, Third District
Aug 8, 1911
16 Cal.App. 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911)
Case details for

People v. Perry

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ARNETT F. PERRY, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Third District

Date published: Aug 8, 1911

Citations

16 Cal.App. 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911)
117 P. 1036

Citing Cases

People v. Tate

Moreover, there are no briefs filed in the cause, and, if an appeal had been taken, the same would have to be…

People v. Mario

The reason of the last-mentioned rule is that, since an appeal presupposes at least some debatable ground of…