History
  • No items yet
midpage
Gardner v. Newbert
189 Ind. 201
Ind.
1920
Check Treatment
Townsend, C. J.

Appellants were convicted of indirect contempt. They claim (1) that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial; (2) that the court erred in overruling their separate motions to discharge the rule. They have not set out their motion for a new trial; nor have they set out their motions to discharge the rule; nor have they set out the substance of any of these motions. They have set out an information for contempt, but no such information is found in the record.

Judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Harvey, J., absent.

Case Details

Case Name: Gardner v. Newbert
Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court
Date Published: Mar 16, 1920
Citation: 189 Ind. 201
Docket Number: No. 23,714
Court Abbreviation: Ind.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.