State v. Muntz
Supreme Court of Kansas
Criminal Appeal from Riley County. Tbe facts sufficiently appear in tbe opinion of the court. The court sustained the first and third grounds of the motion to quash; the latter ground for. the somewhat novel reason that the indictment did not aver that there was but the one Riley county in Kansas, and that the court could not take judicial notice of that fact.
Read the full summary
Criminal Appeal from Riley County. Tbe facts sufficiently appear in tbe opinion of the court. The court sustained the first and third grounds of the motion to quash; the latter ground for. the somewhat novel reason that the indictment did not aver that there was but the one Riley county in Kansas, and that the court could not take judicial notice of that fact. "Were it not for the fact that some grounds of considerable importance are set forth in the motion to quash, this modern jurist — like his great' prototype, the ancient Dog-berry — would have been disappointed in his desire to be writ…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sanford, J.
The defendant was indicted in the county of Riley, under the provisions of the so-called “ Dram Shop Act,” the charge being, selling liquors without a license. The body of the indictment reads as follows: “The jurors of the grand jury of the county of Riley and state of Kansas impanneled, sworn and charged to inquire of offenses committed within the said county of Riley in the said state of Kansas, in the name and by the authority of the state of Kansas, upon their oaths do present and find that Adelbert Muntz, at Ogden in the county of Riley, aforesaid, on 'the 27th…
2Cited by6 opinions
- First National Bank v. McIntosh & Peters Live-stock & Commission Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Stimec v. VerderberSupreme Court of Kansas · 1940
- State v. VolmerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1870
- State v. WaltersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1897
- Mills v. PettigrewSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.