State v. Hall
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. J. D. Barnett, Judge. There was no notice served oh defendants to produce a dramshop license and it was a reversible error for the court to admit the evidence of the county clerk and county collector as to their records, the same being secondary evidencé. State v. Mulloy, 111 Mo. App. 696; State v. Barnett, 110 Mo. App. 592; State v. Sherman, 137 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. J. D. Barnett, Judge. There was no notice served oh defendants to produce a dramshop license and it was a reversible error for the court to admit the evidence of the county clerk and county collector as to their records, the same being secondary evidencé. State v. Mulloy, 111 Mo. App. 696; State v. Barnett, 110 Mo. App. 592; State v. Sherman, 137 Mo. App. 74. The order of the county court is original evidence that the license was granted, that the defendants are to be the owners of said dramshop and that the bond of defendants was examined and…
1Opinion of the CourtCaulfield, J.
(after stating the facts). — It was essential to the maintenance of the prosecution, as framed; that the state prove the defendants were licensed dramshop keepers. [Bachman v. Brown, 57 Mo. App. 68; State v. Reppetto, 66 Mo. App. 251.] The record of the county court granting the license to the defendants was primary evidence that the license was granted, that is, authorized to be issued, but not that it was issued. [State v Barnett, 110 Mo. App. 592, 85 S. W. 613.] The license was the best evidence of -such issuance. [State v. Sherman, 137 Mo. App. 70, 119 S. W. 479.] The record or memorandum…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. KurtzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Bachman v. BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- State v. BarnettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- State v. ShermanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- State v. ReppettoMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.