State v. Grossman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Transferred from St. Louis Court of Appeals. (1) The motion to qnash and demurrer to the information should have been sustained, (a) The first count of the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense, (b) Section 3011, Revised Statutes 1899, is unconstitutional, being in conflict with section 53, article 4, also section 30, article 2, Constitution of Missouri; also section 1, 14th amendment, Constitution of the United States.
Read the full summary
Transferred from St. Louis Court of Appeals. (1) The motion to qnash and demurrer to the information should have been sustained, (a) The first count of the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense, (b) Section 3011, Revised Statutes 1899, is unconstitutional, being in conflict with section 53, article 4, also section 30, article 2, Constitution of Missouri; also section 1, 14th amendment, Constitution of the United States. The general law applicable to all persons selling intoxicating liquor is section 2243, Revised Statutes 1899'. Section 3013 repeals the…
1Opinion of the CourtFox, P. J.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction in the St. Louis-Court of Criminal Correction convicting him as a dramshop keeper of selling, giving away and otherwise disposing of intoxicating liquors upon or about his premises wherein such dramshop is located, on the first day of the week commonly called Sunday.
On August 28, 1905, the assistant prosecuting attorney filed in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction an information containing two counts against *239the defendant. The first count charged that the defendant, having a license as a dramshop keeper, did sell, give…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. DeWittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- O'Connor v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Taylor v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State v. EtchmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Griffin v. SamuelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1839
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. JordanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- State v. ParkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- State v. CitiusSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- State v. CarollaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1926
- State v. HancockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.