State v. Stephens
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Saline Criminal Court. — Hon. Jno. E. Ryland, Judge. The indictment in this case is sufficient. It is not necessary that the exact language of the statute be followed, provided words of equivalent import be . used, or the substance thereof, or words of more, extensive significance, which necessarily include the words of the statute, and the defendant sufficiently apprised of the nature of the offense charged, and his substantial rights not prejudiced by…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Saline Criminal Court. — Hon. Jno. E. Ryland, Judge. The indictment in this case is sufficient. It is not necessary that the exact language of the statute be followed, provided words of equivalent import be . used, or the substance thereof, or words of more, extensive significance, which necessarily include the words of the statute, and the defendant sufficiently apprised of the nature of the offense charged, and his substantial rights not prejudiced by omissions or surplusage. R. S. 1889, sec. 4115; State v. Williamson, 21 Mo. 496; State v. JDengoleshy, 82 Mo. 44; State v.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
The second section of the act to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors in original packages, or otherwise, approved April 20,1891 (Sess. Acts,. 1891, p. 128), provides: “No person shall directly or indirectly sell intoxicating liquors in any quantity less than three gallons, either at retail or in the original package, without taking out a license as a dramshop keeper.”
The indictment contained in the record before us •charges that the defendant, on, etc., at, etc., did sell to a person to these jurors unknown, intoxicating liquors in certain quantities less than one gallon, to wit, one…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. FanningSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- State v. BaskettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- State v. EffingerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. ClinkenbeardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909