State v. Corwin
Supreme Court of Missouri
1st. The indictment is sufficient, both in form and substance: see 3 Bac. Abr. title Judgment 542 and 1 to 60; C. P. title Judgment; Chitty’s Criminal Law, title Judgment, 163. 2d. The offence charged in the indictment is an indictable offence under our statute: see Revised Laws, 292, sec. 8, ib. -481, sec. 25. 3d.
Read the full summary
1st. The indictment is sufficient, both in form and substance: see 3 Bac. Abr. title Judgment 542 and 1 to 60; C. P. title Judgment; Chitty’s Criminal Law, title Judgment, 163. 2d. The offence charged in the indictment is an indictable offence under our statute: see Revised Laws, 292, sec. 8, ib. -481, sec. 25. 3d. That an information though mentioned as one of the remedies in the statute concerning grocers, could not be maintained for a breach of said statute, as there is no mode of practice prescribed by the statute of this State, for proceeding by information, and if we pursue the common…
1Opinion of the Court
Statement of the case and opinion delivered by
McGirk, Judge.
Corwin was indicted by the grand jury of the county of St. Louis for exercising the trade and business of a grocer, by selling spirituous liquors in less quantities than fifteen gallons, at a time, on the 1st of January, 1837.
Corwin, by his counsel, moved the court to quash the indictment, on the ground that the ofiicence is not indictable by the laws of Missouri. The circuit court sustained the motion, and quashed the same, to reverse which the cause is brought here by a writ of error in behalf of the State. Mr. Bird, for the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. HuffschmidtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- People v. ReevesIllinois Circuit Court · 1896