State v. Stock
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court. — Ho». Win. L. Jarrott, Judge. (1) The indictment is defective; it charges no crime. (2) If they had separate licenses or were running separate stores, then they could not be jointly charged. The statement of facts says they made “joint and separate sales” and we can’t tell which the jury convicted them of.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court. — Ho». Win. L. Jarrott, Judge. (1) The indictment is defective; it charges no crime. (2) If they had separate licenses or were running separate stores, then they could not be jointly charged. The statement of facts says they made “joint and separate sales” and we can’t tell which the jury convicted them of. R. S. 1899, sec. 8540; State v. Martin, 5 Mo. 362; State v. Brown, 8 Mo. 211; State v. Cox, 32 Mo. 566; State v. Richeson, 45 Mo. 575; State v. Ford, 47 Mo. App. 601; State v. West, 34 Mo. 424. (3) Where an indictment is founded on a statute creating an…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
The indictment alleged that defendants then and there “being merchants and having a merchant’s license, for dealing in goods, wares and merchandise, did then and there unlawfully sell fermented liquors in less quantity than five gallons, to-wit: one -pint of beer, one pint of fermented liquor called ‘Hop Tea,’ they, the said G. Stock and H. A. Stock, then and there, not having a dramshop-keeper’s license or any other authority therefor, against,” etc.
I. The sufficiency of the said indictment is questioned by the defendants on the ground that it is nowhere 'therein charged that they dealt in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- State v. RyanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- State v. StubblefieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
- State v. DuclosSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
- State v. WillisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.