Martin v. State
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Chapman, J. cited, contending that a principal is not criminally liable for sale of liquor by an agent, unless express or implied consent is shown: 1 Bishop, Cr.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Chapman, J. cited, contending that a principal is not criminally liable for sale of liquor by an agent, unless express or implied consent is shown: 1 Bishop, Cr. Law, seos. 402^-5; 2 Id., sec. 1155 ; Lathrope v. State, 51 Ind., 192; O'Leary v. State, 44 Id., 91; Wreidt v. State, 48 Id., 579; Hipp v. State, 5 Blackf. [Id.], 149; Com. v. Briant, 142 Mass., 463; Com. v. Stevenson, Id., 466; Com. v. Nichols, 10 Met. [Mass.], 259; Anderson v. State, 22 O. St-., 305; Mullinix v. People, 76 111., 215; Needy v. Howe, 72 Id., 135;…
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
The plaintiff in error was indicted for selling liquor on Sunday, the 9th day of October, 1887. There are five counts in the indictment.
On the trial of the cause Martin was found guilty on the first count and not guilty on the others.
In the court below Martin moved to quash the indict*509ment because the foreman of the grand jury did not indorse thereon the words “A true bill.” An examination of the indictment, however, shows the words “True bill” to have been indorsed thereon and duly signed by the foreman of the grand jury. This was sufficient and the omission of the letter “A” before the words…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Burrell v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by6 opinions
- Barlow v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Hans v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- Lehman v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1902
- Seele v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1909
- Nichols v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.