State v. Chastain
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Klamath county: L. R. Webster, judge. The defendant was jointly indicted with one D. A. Seo. t under a charge of selling spirituous liquors without a license. There was a failure in arresting Scott, and defendant went to separate trial and was convicted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Klamath county: L. R. Webster, judge. The defendant was jointly indicted with one D. A. Seo. t under a charge of selling spirituous liquors without a license. There was a failure in arresting Scott, and defendant went to separate trial and was convicted. On the trial the defendant sought to introduce substantially the following facts as a defense to the indictment: That one D. A. Scott, the co-defendant in this indictment, about the first day of October, 1S89, opened a saloon for sale of spirituous liquors at Bonanza, a small village in Klamath county, Oregon, situated about…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
On behalf of the defendant, it is contended that as he was simply a servant or employe of Scott and had no interest in the business or the result of the sales of liquor, and honestly believed his employer had procured a license, and was mislead by him; that he could have no motive or intention to violate the law, without which his act could not constitute a criminal offense. The contention, therefore, is, that to make a transaction criminal, there must be both the will and act entering into the transaction.
That “the wrongful intent being the essence of every crime, the doctrine necessarily…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People v. RobyMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Faulks v. PeopleMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1914
- State v. GulleyOregon Supreme Court · 1902
- Weisendanger v. LindSupreme Court of Kansas · 1923
- North & Douglas v. WoodlandIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
- Hiers v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.