State v. Fanning
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Dade Circuit Court. The reason assigned on the motion to quash and in arrest of judgment, that the indictment,- does not charge that the liquor was sold in a less quantitythan one quart, is untrue in fact; the indictment expressly charges the quantity to have been one pint. The indictment is for a violation of § 1, ch. 57, R. C. 1855. p. 688, and sufficiently charges an offence under the same.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Dade Circuit Court. The reason assigned on the motion to quash and in arrest of judgment, that the indictment,- does not charge that the liquor was sold in a less quantitythan one quart, is untrue in fact; the indictment expressly charges the quantity to have been one pint. The indictment is for a violation of § 1, ch. 57, R. C. 1855. p. 688, and sufficiently charges an offence under the same. The fact that the accused may have been privileged to sell the liquor by virtue of some other statute is not necessary, to be negatived in an indictment under this section — State v.…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, Judge
The indictment charged the defendant with “ unlawfully selling a large quantity of intoxicating liquors, to-wit, one pint of whiskey, without then and there having a dram-shop licence, or any other legal authority.” Tins indictment does not even pursue the language of the statute. The gravamen of the offence consists in selling intoxicating liquors in a less *410quantity than one gallon. It may be true that he sold a pint, but as a part of the larger quantity alleged to have been sold. This is a greater laxity in pleading than can be allowed. The exact quantity is immaterial, provided it be a…
2Cited by9 opinions
- State v. WilksonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- State v. RyanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- State v. BaskettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- State v. BaldwinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- State v. SillsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.