State v. Hafsoos
South Dakota Supreme Court
Error to county court, Lincoln county. Hon. A. G. Steiner, Judge. The facts and. nature of the proceedings are stated in the opinion. It is not the sale of liquor that constitutes a crime under the statute, but it is the sale of liquor as a beverage that is prohibited. The information does not state a public offense in that it does not charge that the liquors were sold as a beverage. § 1, Chap. 101, Laws of 1890; Wharton Crim, Law 1499; 2 Wharton Crim.
Read the full summary
Error to county court, Lincoln county. Hon. A. G. Steiner, Judge. The facts and. nature of the proceedings are stated in the opinion. It is not the sale of liquor that constitutes a crime under the statute, but it is the sale of liquor as a beverage that is prohibited. The information does not state a public offense in that it does not charge that the liquors were sold as a beverage. § 1, Chap. 101, Laws of 1890; Wharton Crim, Law 1499; 2 Wharton Crim. Proc. 792; State v. Monger, 15 Vt. 290; State v. Webster, 5 Halst. 293; Rawlings v. State, 2 Md. 201; Franklin v. State, 12 Md. 236; Davis v.…
1Opinion of the CourtKeixam, J.
In the county court of Lincoln county an information was filed against the plaintiff in error of which the charging part is as follows: “That, on information and *383belief, the deponent complains and charges that the defendant, John Doe, whose true name is to the deponent, unknown, did, at the county of Lincoln, and State of South Dakota, on the 23d day of June, A. D. 1890, sell intoxicating liquors maliciously and willfully, and contrary to the statutes in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of South Dakota. ” To this information plaintiff in error…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Vanderwood v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1875