Casey v. State
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Washington county. It is insisted that the offence as alleged in the information and summons, is not warranted by the statute, the first being conjunctive, the latter in the disjunctive.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Washington county. It is insisted that the offence as alleged in the information and summons, is not warranted by the statute, the first being conjunctive, the latter in the disjunctive. Act 1839, page 52, sec. 18. The offence proved is not punishable by the grocers law. 16 sec. 36 page 55. The offence proved, if punishable at all, is an offence in violation of the dram shop law, and should have been proceeded against, and in that law, (16 sec. 36.) It is not proved that Casey suffered the liquor and wine sold to be drank at his grocery, nor is it proved that…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Napton, Judge.
In compliance with the duty imposed by the 47th section *647<of the act “to license and regulate groceries, dram shops and for other purposes',” approved February 13th, 1839, John Brickey, a justice of the peace for Washington county, filed information in writing before Eugene Mara, another justice of the same comity, charging the appellant with having sold wines and liquors, and suffering the same to be drank in his grocery. The offence is specified in the 18th section of the above mentioned act; the summons of the justice in pursuance of the information,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Town of Kirkwood v. AutenreithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- State v. MeagherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- State v. QuinnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Greene County ex rel. Sims v. WilhiteMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Town of Kirkwood v. AutenreithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1882
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.