State v. Crowley
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. The indictment should either have stated facts sufficient to show whether it was intended to charge defendant for selling liquor without giving the bond required by the law concerning dramshops, (R. C. 1855, p. 648, § 8,) or whether it was for failing to give the bond required under the act to tax and license merchants, (R. C. 1855, pp. 1073-7, §§ 1-4 & 22,) or wlietheivit was for selling liquors without giving the bond required by the law of…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. The indictment should either have stated facts sufficient to show whether it was intended to charge defendant for selling liquor without giving the bond required by the law concerning dramshops, (R. C. 1855, p. 648, § 8,) or whether it was for failing to give the bond required under the act to tax and license merchants, (R. C. 1855, pp. 1073-7, §§ 1-4 & 22,) or wlietheivit was for selling liquors without giving the bond required by the law of 1861, entitled “ An act to prevent the adulteration of spirituous liquors in this State.” (Acts of 1860-61, p. 92.) This…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
The defendant was indicted at the April term of the Linn county Circuit Court, in 1865, for unlawfully selling spirituous liquors, without first appearing before the county court clerk of the county of Linn, and giving bond as required by law. He filed his motion to qiiash the indictment, and assigned as reason : “ 1. Said indictment does not charge sufficient facts upon its face to constitute any offence under the law. 2. The indictment does not negative the exceptions named in the 6th section of the act under which this indictment is .found» 3. The indictment is in other respects defective,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. FergusonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Schwickerath v. CookseySupreme Court of Missouri · 1873