Condit v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. The testimony fails to show a sale of liquor by defendant. 2. The court erred in giving instruction No. 3 and in refusing 1 and 2. 90 Ark. 579. 1. The testimony shows a sale of liquor, but appellant was guilty as an intermediary. 125 Ark. 232; 105 Id. 462; 56 A. L. E. No. 5, 348. 2. There is no error in the instructions given or refused. 90 Ark. 579.
1Opinion of the CourtHaet, J.
The grand jury returned two indictments against Pete Condit for selling intoxicating liquors. Each indictment charged him with the sale of intoxicating liquors on the 28th day of May, 1917. By agreement between the defendant and the prosecuting attorney, the two' cases were consolidated and tried together. The jury returned a verdict of guilty in each case. From the judgment of conviction the defendant has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court. It is agreed that the circuit court granted a new trial in one of the. cases and that alleged errors in only one of the cases are involved in this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bobo v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Parker v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Wilson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
3Cited by2 opinions
- Moore v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1972
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923