73 Iowa 456 | Iowa | 1887
II. Counsel claim that evidence of admissions of defendant were erroneously admitted, for the reason that they were induced by promises of immunity. But it is sufficient to say that the abstract and amended abstract show that no such inducements existed.
III. A witness, in giving the time of a conversation, stated that it was after defendant had had his trial on the preliminary examination, as we understand it. This is complained of for the reason that, as it is alleged, evidence of another trial was admitted. No evidence of the trial was given further than a reference to it in order to fix a date. The abstract does not show the matters on which the motion is based. The foregoing are specimens of numerous objections, all of as little merit as those we have noticed. They demand no attention.
IY. It is insisted that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. We think there is no ground for interfering with the verdict. We cannot hold that it is not the honest, unbiased and intelligent expression of the conclusion of the jury, based upon the evidence before them. On no point can it be said that there is such absence of proof as would authorize us to interfere.
The judgment of the district court must be
Affirmed.