Legal Opinion

Dickerson v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 12, 1923PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

Appellant was tried and convicted under an indictment which charged that he “unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously did make mash, wort and wash fit for the distillation and manufacture of alcoholic liquor, the said P. H. Dickerson not being a person authorized under the laws of the United States to manufacture sweet cider, vinegar, non-alcoholic or spirits for other than beverage purposes.”

It is first insisted that the demurrer to the indictment should have been sustained because the indictment does not allege the intent with which the mash, wort or wash was made. It will be observed1 that the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Logan v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
  2. Borland v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  3. Wood v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  4. Bohannon v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  5. Milliner v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Frame v. WhittamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
  2. Rinehart v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
  3. Newcomb v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API