STATE v. JONATHAN T. ALMY, R.I., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

H.Y. Cranston
W.H. Cranston for defendant, moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that the copy of the recognizance, which constituted a portion of the copy of the case prepared by the Clerk of the Justices' Court
here filed, was clearly inconsistent with the original record of that Court, now produced
exhibited on the call of the defendant: contending that a copy of a case must embody a copy of the recognizance taken on
Hart, Attorney General, for the

Judges

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

H.Y. Cranston
W.H. Cranston for defendant, moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that the copy of the recognizance, which constituted a portion of the copy of the case prepared by the Clerk of the Justices' Court
here filed, was clearly inconsistent with the original record of that Court, now produced
exhibited on the call of the defendant: contending that a copy of a case must embody a copy of the recognizance taken on
Hart, Attorney General, for the

Judges

See more information ...

Smart Summary

STATE v. JONATHAN T. ALMY.

The recognizance given in a Justices' Court, on appeal, is not an essential portion of the case required to be filed in the Appellate Court.

THE COURT.

Held that the recognizance is not an essential portion of a copy of a case, and accordingly overruled the motion.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.