Robinson & Warren v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
EEEOE to Pope Circuit Court. Hon. W. D. Jacowat, Circuit Judge. Bee. 19, Act March 8th, 1879 (p. 38), is the law of this case. Warren was certain!y “interested in the sale” if he accepted any part of the proceeds ; and if he did not, it was competent for him to show it, by proof, as a defense, which he did not do. STATEMENT.
Read the full summary
EEEOE to Pope Circuit Court. Hon. W. D. Jacowat, Circuit Judge. Bee. 19, Act March 8th, 1879 (p. 38), is the law of this case. Warren was certain!y “interested in the sale” if he accepted any part of the proceeds ; and if he did not, it was competent for him to show it, by proof, as a defense, which he did not do. STATEMENT. The indictment charges, “That Henry Robinson and Jesse Warren, on the tenth day of January, 1881, in the county of Pope, unlawfully were interested in the sale, to one R. B. Lazenby, of one pint of ardent liquors, without the written consent or order of the parent or…
1Opinion of the Court
English, C. J. The court charged the jury: “That if they believed, “from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the •saloon of defendants, in the town of Atkins, county of Pope, ■etc., within twelve months before the finding of the indictment, the defendant, Robinson, sold to the witness, Lazenby, ■one pint of ardent liquors, without the written consent or order •of his parent or guardian, and that said Lazenby was under twenty-one years of age at the time; that although the ■defendant, Warren, may not have been present at the time, ■or have known or had any knowledge of such sale,…
2Cited by11 opinions
- State v. LundgrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Bell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- In Re CaspersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Murchison v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- State v. McCanceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.