State v. Pittman
Supreme Court of Kansas
Appeal from, Neosho District Cowrt. Pittman was tried upon an information charging him with selling intoxicating liquors “in the Town of Jacksonville,” in violation of the dramshop act. The case was tried at the-December Term 1872. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and on motion the court, holding that “the information did not state facts constituting a public offense,” arrested judgment, and discharged the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Neosho District Cowrt. Pittman was tried upon an information charging him with selling intoxicating liquors “in the Town of Jacksonville,” in violation of the dramshop act. The case was tried at the-December Term 1872. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and on motion the court, holding that “the information did not state facts constituting a public offense,” arrested judgment, and discharged the defendant. The State appeals from said order and decision, and brings the case here for review. The averments of the information are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. The court…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
This was a criminal prosecution under § 3 of the dramshop act, (ch. 35, Gen. Stat., 400.) The defendant was found guilty, and the court arrested the judgment on the ground that the information upon which the defendant was tried did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense. The information charges that the defendant sold intoxicating liquor in the town of Jacksonville, Neosho county, Kansas, “without taking out and then having a license as grocer, dramshop-keeper, or tavern-keeper from the tribv/nal transacting the county…
2Cited by10 opinions
- State v. DunnSupreme Court of Kansas · 2016
- Smythe v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1909
- City of Salina v. SeitzSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
- State v. RickseckerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- State v. PitzerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.