People v. Curtis
Michigan Supreme Court
Exceptions before judgment from Ingham. (Person, J.) Respondent was convicted of a violation of the provision of the liquor law prohibiting the sale of liquor by druggists to be drank on the premises. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
The respondent was convicted of a violation of the provision of the liquor law which prohibits sales of liquor by druggists to be drank on the premises. He assigns three grounds of error:
1. That the information was insufficient.
2. That the complaining witness was not sworn on the examination.
3. That the court erred in refusing to charge as requested • by his second request, as .follows: “From the evidence in *214this case it appears that the man Shoemaker Avent to the village of Stockbridge for the purpose of getting the respondent to commit the offense charged in this cause, and I charge you…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People v. MurphyMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Myers v. CarrMichigan Supreme Court · 1863
- People v. PendletonMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by17 opinions
- Shapard v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1967
- Smalley v. Ashland Brown-Stone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
- People v. MatthewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- People v. MeadowsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1989
- People v. EvertsMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.