Williams v. Slaughter

1 Citing case

  1. United States v. Dressler

    112 F.2d 972 (7th Cir. 1940)   Cited 44 times
    In United States v. Dressler, 112 F.2d 972, 976-978, it was held that courts cannot annul the rule requiring the exclusion of incompetent and prejudicial information regarding other offenses of a defendant merely to facilitate the use of fingerprint evidence, and that where such information went to the jury room with other exhibits it constituted prejudicial error.

    Gambon v. City of New York, 153 Misc. 401, 274 N.Y.S. 653; Lambert v. Caronna, 206 N.C. 616, 175 S.E. 303; Breeden v. Hurley, 13 Tenn. App. 599; Ward v. Morris, 159 Ga. 526, 126 S.E. 291; Askew v. Redwine Bros., 32 Ga. App. 540, 123 S.E. 906; Ruwisch v. Knoebel, 233 Ill. App. 526; Miller v. Berne Hardware Co., 64 Ind. App. 473, 116 N.E. 54; Beaubien v. Detroit United Ry., 216 Mich. 391, 185 N.W. 855; May v. City of Atlanta, 9 Ga. App. 391, 71 S.E. 499; Bauwens v. Goethals, 187 Ill. App. 563; Gregory v. Bijou Theater Co., 138 App. Div. 590, 122 N.Y.S. 1085; Messinger v. Antokolitz, 74 Misc. 588, 134 N.Y.S. 555. Noble v. Key Syst., 10 Cal.App.2d 132, 51 P.2d 887; Winters v. Bisaillon, 152 Or. 578, 54 P.2d 1169; Walter v. Ayvazian, 134 Cal.App. 360, 25 P.2d 526; Bennett v. Nazzaro, 144 Misc. 450, 258 N YS. 828, affirmed 237 App. Div. 866, 261 N.Y.S. 1018; Williams v. Slaughter, 159 Okla. 254, 15 P.2d 27; Bourre v. Texas Co., 51 R.I. 254, 154 A. 82; Corbin v. McCrary, 22 Ga. App. 472, 96 S.E. 445; Johnson v. Smith, 118 Wn. 146, 203 P. 56; Pittsburgh, C.C. St. L. Ry. Co. v. Collins, 168 Ind. 467, 80 N.E. 415; Waltham Piano Co. v. Freeman, 159 Iowa 567, 141 N.W. 403; Broadway Bldg. Co. v. Saladino, 81 Misc. 73, 142 N.Y.S. 1076; Johnson v. Seel, 26 N.D. 299, 144 N.W. 237; Chicago R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 55 Okla. 173, 154 P. 1161. In the instant case, there is before us nothing — not even the affidavit of counsel for defendant.