Legal Opinion

State v. Carnahan

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided November 4, 1895PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from the Jackson Criminal Court. — Hon. John W. Woeeord, Judge. (1) The motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained for the reason that the said indictment does not contain the allegation that the defendant was a registered druggist. This allegation must be proven; hence, must be embodied in the indictment. State v. Green, 36 Mo. App. 627; State v. Boiler, 77 Mo. 120 to 128; see, also, State v. Marchand, 25 Mo. App. 657; State v. Basket, 51 Mo.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.

The defendant, a druggist, was indicted, tried and convicted of selling intoxicating liquor without prescription, etc. Defendant’s motion to quash the indictment was overruled. The indictment was as follows: “The grand jurors, etc., upon their oath, present that J. L. Carnahan, etc., on the twenty-fourth day of December, 1893, at, etc., he being then and there a druggist and the proprietor of a drug store, did then and there unlawfully sell intoxicating liquors to one Henry Wrightman, in less quantities than four gallons, to wit, etc., and that said intoxicating liquor was not' then and there…

2Cases cited4 opinions

State v. MartinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
State v. MartinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
State v. BaskettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
State v. GreeneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887

3Cited by11 opinions

State v. FellersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
State v. BradfordMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
State v. ManningMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
State v. LantzCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1901
State v. McAnallyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904

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