State v. Jenkins
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Texas Circuit Court. — Hon. Leigh B. Woodside, Judge. (1) Tlie motion to quash the information should have been sustained, because the second information was not an amended information, but an entire substitution. The first information was a perfect charge under the merchant’s law and was not susceptible of amendment. The second information charged an offense under the dramshop law. "While the law is liberal as to amendments, it does not permit a substitution.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Texas Circuit Court. — Hon. Leigh B. Woodside, Judge. (1) Tlie motion to quash the information should have been sustained, because the second information was not an amended information, but an entire substitution. The first information was a perfect charge under the merchant’s law and was not susceptible of amendment. The second information charged an offense under the dramshop law. "While the law is liberal as to amendments, it does not permit a substitution. It is only when there is a defect in the information, that an amended one can be filed. R. S. 1889, sec. 4331; State v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
On the twenty-ninth day of March, 1898, one W. E. Cunningham filed an affidavit before S. P. Higgins, a justice of the peace of Sherrill township, in Texas county, Missouri, charging the defendant with selling liquor in violation of the merchant’s law. A warrant was issued, the defendant arrested and the case set for April 1, 1898.
On April 1 the prosecuting attorney filed with said justice his information charging that the defendant “on the nineteenth day of March, 1898, at the said county of Texas, being then and there a merchant, and having merchant’s license for dealing in goods, wares and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. EmbertonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. KuselWyoming Supreme Court · 1923
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1965
- State v. StricklerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1949