Legal Opinion

State v. Pitzer

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 15, 1880PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from Franklin District Court. Indictment against Pitzer, for selling intoxicating liquor without duly taking out and having a license so to do. At the'May Term, 1879, the district court sustained defendant’s motion to quash the indictment filed against him, and discharged the defendant to go hence without day. The State appeals.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Brewer, J.:

This is an appeal by the state from a ruling of the district court quashing an indictment. The indictment was for selling liquor without a license, and charged the selling “without taking out or then having a license as grocer, dramshop-keeper, or tavern-keeper.” The point made was, that in the city of Ottawa, a city of the second class, where the selling was charged to have been done, the defendant might lawfully sell liquor under a license in form as for keeping a saloon, or simply for the sale of liquor, and that as this was not negatived…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. PittmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
  2. Williams v. LouisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. DunnSupreme Court of Kansas · 2016
  2. Smythe v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1909
  3. Regadanz v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
  4. State v. DunnSupreme Court of Kansas · 2016
  5. State v. DunnSupreme Court of Kansas · 2016

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API