Commonwealth v. Harris & Hickman
Supreme Court of Virginia
At the June term 1849, of the Hustings court of Danville, the grand jury presented James B. Harris and John Hickman for selling ardent spirits to be drank where sold, without a license, to Hugh Ramey. Upon this presentment an information was filed, to which the defendants pleaded jointly “not guilty;” and were tried together, when the jury found them guilty in manner and form as was alleged in the information.
Read the full summary
At the June term 1849, of the Hustings court of Danville, the grand jury presented James B. Harris and John Hickman for selling ardent spirits to be drank where sold, without a license, to Hugh Ramey. Upon this presentment an information was filed, to which the defendants pleaded jointly “not guilty;” and were tried together, when the jury found them guilty in manner and form as was alleged in the information. When the jury brought in their verdict, the defendants moved the Court to arrest the judgment on the grounds, *lst. That the information charges the offence jointly against the…
1Opinion of the CourtLomax, J.
Upon the first question adjourned, this Court is unanimously of opinion, that two or more persons may be jointly indicted for retailing ardent spirits without a license.
Upon the second question, a majority of the Court is of opinion, that the judgment of the Hustings court of Danville for several fines of thirty dollars against each of the plaintiffs in error, is correct.
*Upon the third question adjourned, a majority, of the Court is of opinion, that judgment should be rendered in the Circuit court affirming the judgment of the Hustings court of Danville.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Glover v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1889
- State v. GriggsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1890
- Meadowcroft v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1896