No. 26187 Precedential Affirmed Processed

State v. Adams

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 5, 1923 · 98 So. 403

Cited by

Distinguished in 1

Red River v. Noles 406 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Terrebonne Parish Police Jury v. Matherne 405 So. 2d 314 La. 1981
David v. Dixie Rice Agricultural Corp. 379 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Cole v. Mott 351 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Poole v. Guste 262 So. 2d 339 La. 1972
Long v. Childress 255 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Poole v. Guste 246 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Pearce v. Gunter 221 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Wild v. LeBlanc 191 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Gamburg v. City of Alexandria 85 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
Harris v. Pierce 73 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Godchaux Sugars, Inc. v. Ockman 68 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1953

Opinion text

ST. PAUL, J. This defendant was charged at the same time and with the same offense as charged against her husband, whose appeal we have just passed upon ( 98 South. 402 1 ); but she was tried and convicted separately. She has reserved no bills of exception, and comes before us with nothing but certain “propositions of law,” as mentioned and disposed pf in the fourth section of our opinion in the appeal taken by her husband. We see no error of law in her conviction, and same must be affirmed. But we think that the circumstances in her ease may be- deserving of the attention of the Board of Pardons. Decree. The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. Ante, p. 873.