State v. Morgan
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court. — Eon. John T. Moore, Special Judge. .'(T)j The indictment does not charge that the drinking was at or about defendant’s drugstore, and the. motion to quash should have been sustained. (2) Instruction 3 given for the State does not correctly state the law in regard to circumstantial evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court. — Eon. John T. Moore, Special Judge. .'(T)j The indictment does not charge that the drinking was at or about defendant’s drugstore, and the. motion to quash should have been sustained. (2) Instruction 3 given for the State does not correctly state the law in regard to circumstantial evidence. It comments on the evidence, assumes that intoxicating liquor was drank on defendant’s premises, and directs the jury to convict if defendant had knowledge of such drinking whether he consented to such drinking or not. “Knowledge” and'“permission” are not synonymous. (1)…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
Defendant, a druggist in Polk county, was indicted, tried and convicted for the offense of permitting intoxicating liquor to he drunk at his place of business. The indictment is as follows: “The grand jurors for the State of Missouri, summoned from the body of citizens of Polk county, empaneled, charged and sworn upon their oaths, present and charge that Richard Morgan, late of the county aforesaid, on the 6th day of December, 1906, at the said county of Polk in the State of Missouri, being then and there a druggist and dealer in drugs and medicines, did then and there unlawfully suffer and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. CrawfordMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- State v. CampbellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914