State v. Tuggle
State v. Tuggle, 92 So. 699 (La. 1922).
Cited by
- Newton v. Inter-American, Inc. 209 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
- Eden v. Johnson 176 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
- South Street Lumber Company v. Dickerson 106 So. 2d 513 La. 1958
- Babers v. Jolly 107 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
- Williams v. Ralph S. Miller Shows 5 So. 2d 135 La. 1941
- First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Vicksburg v. Drexler 171 So. 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Hope v. Gordon 173 So. 177 La. 1936
- Inter City Express Lines, Inc. v. Guarisco 165 So. 727 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Superior Oil Co. v. Baltar 160 So. 626 La. 1935
- Self v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 151 So. 193 La. 1933
- Collins v. McCook 136 So. 204 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1931
- Charles B. Nelsen & Co. v. Rodriguez 133 So. 347 La. 1931
Opinion text
PROVOSTY, C. J. The accused was convicted of having kept a blind tiger, and was sentenced to a fine of $301, and six months imprisonment in the parish jail in default of paying the fine, and has appealed. [1] He moved to quash the bill of information against him on the ground that “it does not set out, charge or define any crime under the laws of the state of Lousiana.” What was meant by this we are at a loss to know, as the case has not been argued, either orally or by brief, and the information charges the offense in the words of the statute. Act 8, p. 15, of Extra Session of 1915. [2] There was a motion for new trial, based on the ground that the court had let in certain evidence over the objection of accused. But the record fails to show that a bill of exception was reserved to the overruling of the .objection. Judgment affirmed.