State v. Fraser
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Dent Circnit Court. — Hon. L. B. Woodside, Judge. (1) The second count charged acts constituting different offences.. They may he so charged in separate counts, if the acts charged are not repugnant, but not in the same count. State v. Nichols, 124 Mo. App. 330; State v. Fox, 148 Mo. 517; State v. Blakely, 184 Mo. 187. (2) The information charged “keeping, storing for and delivering to” the witness Mattison.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dent Circnit Court. — Hon. L. B. Woodside, Judge. (1) The second count charged acts constituting different offences.. They may he so charged in separate counts, if the acts charged are not repugnant, but not in the same count. State v. Nichols, 124 Mo. App. 330; State v. Fox, 148 Mo. 517; State v. Blakely, 184 Mo. 187. (2) The information charged “keeping, storing for and delivering to” the witness Mattison. The acts of keeping and storing for the inconsistent with “delivering to” and cannot be charged in the same count. Kelley’s Criminal Law, p. 121, sec. 201. (3) The information…
1Opinion of the CourtNixon, P. J.
The defendant was tried in the circuit court of Dent county upon an information containing two counts, the’ first, the offense of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of the Local Option Law, and the second with unlawfully delivering intoxicating liquors in a county in which the Local Option Law was in force. He was acquitted on the first count, hut convicted on the second, and has appealed to this court.
Roy Mattison testified for the state that he was in the city of Salem in Dent county on the 4th day of April, 1911, and met the defendant with whom he was acquainted; that he got three…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. BurnsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
3Cited by2 opinions
- Koval v. Liquor Control CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- State v. ParkelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914