State v. Small
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Scotland Circuit Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The instructions given upon the part of the plaintiff were illegal, because the evidence shows that the defendant was indicted and convicted for selling upon the 4th and 7th days of October, 1858, upon the same evidence as given in this cause.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Scotland Circuit Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The instructions given upon the part of the plaintiff were illegal, because the evidence shows that the defendant was indicted and convicted for selling upon the 4th and 7th days of October, 1858, upon the same evidence as given in this cause. The instructions asked for by the defendant and refused by the court ought to have been given, because the evidence shows that the witness had testified upon the trial of the two first indictments to various sales made on the 4th and 7th, to various…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This was an indictment for selling intoxicating liquors without license. The defendant was indicted, by the same grand jury which found the present indictment, for two similar offences in two separate indictments. In the case now before us, the offence is alleged to have been committed on the 5th of October, 1858. There are two counts in the indictment, as there were in the other indictments, in which the offences arc charged to have been committed — the one on the 4th, and the other on the 7th of October, 1858. To the indictment the defendant pleaded a former conviction,' and gave the…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Sullivan v. FergusonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- State v. PanchukNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1926
- State v. GammaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Emerson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
- State v. FellersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.