Winston v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Faulkner Circuit Court; George W. Clark, Judge; The indictment charges the manufacture of' whiskey. Proof of making choc beer is not sufficient.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Faulkner Circuit Court; George W. Clark, Judge; The indictment charges the manufacture of' whiskey. Proof of making choc beer is not sufficient. The words “commonly called whiskey” used in the indictment are descriptive of the offense charged. 129 Ark. 362, 364; 62 Ark. 459; 84 Ark. 285; 71 Ark. 415; 64 Ark. 188; 37 Ark. 408; 141 Ark. 276. One offense cannot be proved by evidence of another, unless the two are so related as to form a part of the same transaction. 91 Ark. 555; 88 Ark. 579; 39 Ark. 278; 100 Ark. 321; 62 Ark. 126. 1. Evidence of other offenses or acts similar to the…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction on an indictment which charged that the appellant “unlawfully and feloniously did manufacture and unlawfully and feloniously was interested in the manufacturing of one pint .of alcoholic, ardent, vinous and intoxicating spirits commonly called “whiskey.” The appellant denied that he had manufactured any whiskey. There was testimony from which the jury might have found that the appellant had manufactured whiskey. There was also testimony from which the jury might have found that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of “choc beer,” and not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Carleton v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Shuffield v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. VieringSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928