Legal Opinion

People v. Faust

California Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1896No. Crim. No. 105PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Lassen County, and from an order denying a new trial. W. T. Hasten, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Britt, C.

It is provided by section 397 of the Penal Code, as amended in 1893, that: “ Every person who *175sells or furnishes .... intoxicating liquors to any Indian is guilty of a felony.” Defendant in this case was tried and convicted under an information charging that he did, on August 17, 1895, at the county of Lassen, “willfully and unlawfully sell and furnish intoxicating liquor, to wit, whiskey, to two Indians,” contrary to the form of the statute, etc. He contends on this appeal that the information was not direct and certain as to the offense charged, in that it failed to name the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. McKennaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. People v. EttingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Commonwealth v. McClellanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  4. People v. LockwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. People v. BurkeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
  2. People v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  3. People v. FosterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Holley's v. CurryWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1905
  5. People v. KinsleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API