State v. Andrews
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Polk Circuit Court. There was a variance in the proof and allegation. The indictment in this case is similar to the indictment in the case of the State v. Arbogast, 24 Mo. 363. The offence consists in selling in any quantity less than a gallon without a license. It is not necessary to prove the exact quantity as charged.
Read the full summary
Error to Polk Circuit Court. There was a variance in the proof and allegation. The indictment in this case is similar to the indictment in the case of the State v. Arbogast, 24 Mo. 363. The offence consists in selling in any quantity less than a gallon without a license. It is not necessary to prove the exact quantity as charged. (State v. Cooper, 16 Mo. 552.) The circumstance which in point of law is essential to the offence is a sale in any quantity less than a gallon, and if the proof corresponds to the allegation in this respect, it will suffice. (1 Ohitty Or. Law, p. 293; 2 Russell,…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, Judge
The indictment charges that the defendant unlawfully sold a quantity of spirituous liquor, to-wit, one pint of whisky, without having a dram-shop keeper’s license or any other authority for that purpose. The proof was that the defendant sold less than a half-pint of whisky. It was objected that there was a fatal variance, and that a conviction could only be had on proof that the defendant sold the exact quantity stated in the indictment.
The first section qf the dram-shop act (R. C. 1855, p. 683) prohibits any person from selling intoxicating liquors in any quantity less than one gallon…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. ArbogastSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
- State v. CooperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
3Cited by1 opinion
- Strozier v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917