Summary
In Walker v. People, supra, by a divided court (five to two) it was held under a statute like ours that bonds issued and owned under substantially the same conditions as the bonds in the case at bar were not within the jurisdiction of the state of Colorado and not subject to the inheritance tax imposed by the Colorado statute. It may be said in passing that the opinions of the two dissenting justices shed no light upon the controversy.
Summary of this case from McLAUGHLIN ET AL. v. CLUFF ET ALOpinion
No. A-2908.
Opinion Filed May 18, 1918.
1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Assignments of Error — Variance. An assignment of error in that there was a fatal variance between the allegations of information and proof not urged in the court below, and not a ground for a reversal presented in the petition in error, need not be considered.
2. SAME. An assignment that there was a fatal variance between the allegations of the information and the proof is not a matter that goes to the court's jurisdiction.
Appeal from County Court, Latimer County; C.R. Hunt, Judge.
J.A. Thomas was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve a term of thirty days' imprisonment in the county jail, and he appeals. Judgment affirmed.
Jones Lester, for plaintiff in error.
S.P. Freeling, Atty. Gen., and R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Only two alleged errors are urged in this court for a reversal of this judgment: (1) That the verdict and judgment are contrary to the evidence; (2) that there is a fatal variance between the allegations of the information and the proof.
The second assignment of error was not urged in the court below, and is not one of the grounds for reversal presented in the petition in error. It is unnecessary, therefore, to consider same, except to say that it is not a matter that goes to the jurisdiction of the court, nor do we think same of such merit as to require a reversal of this judgment if it had been properly presented.
The evidence is conflicting. This court is not authorized to substitute its judgment on a question of fact for that of the jury. Suffice it to say that there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, is amply sufficient to authorize a conviction of the crime charged.
For the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed.