midpage

State v. SchoolcraftState v. Schoolcraft

Supreme Court of Vermont
Mar 9, 1900
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Munson
Munson, J.

In the court below the respondent-claimed that the indictment ‍​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‍was defective for the reason that “it did not particularly in terms refer to sections 2703 and 2701 of ‍​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‍the Vermont Statutes,” and for the further reason that it did not set forth that the deci-ee of divorce remained ‍​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‍in effect at the time of the cohabiting. These points are not now urged. The points which are urged ‍​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‍were not made in the court below, and therefore cannot be considered.

Judgment that there is no error in the ‍​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‍proceedings and that the respondent take nothing hy his exceptions.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Schoolcraft
Court Name: Supreme Court of Vermont
Date Published: Mar 9, 1900
Citations: 47 A. 786; 72 Vt. 223; 1900 Vt. LEXIS 118
Court Abbreviation: Vt.
Log In