State v. Stanley
North Dakota Supreme Court
Prosecution for the crime of bootlegging. Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Honorable G. W. Buttz, Judge. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The commitment was void because of no indorsement on the complaint by the magistrate, and defendant should have been released on habeas corpus. State v. Rozum, 8 N. D. 548, 80 N. W. 480; Comp.
Read the full summary
Prosecution for the crime of bootlegging. Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Honorable G. W. Buttz, Judge. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The commitment was void because of no indorsement on the complaint by the magistrate, and defendant should have been released on habeas corpus. State v. Rozum, 8 N. D. 548, 80 N. W. 480; Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 10,616, 11,375; Ex parte Branigan, 19 Cal. 138. In a legal sense a person is drunk when he is visibly excited, or his judgment is impaired by liquor. He is not, under such circumstances, capable of making a contract, and cannot…
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
In this case the defendant has been convicted of the ■crime of bootlegging, and he appeals to this court. The conviction is under Comp. Laws, § 10,144. The crime is committed by any person •selling intoxicating liquors one or more times to one or more persons upon public roads, streets, or alleys, or upon lands and buildings of .any person, without the permission of the owner of such land or buildings. The charge against the defendant is that on July 3, 1915, in Devils Lake, Ramsey county, he did sell to each of three certain persons intoxicating liquors as a beverage, in a frame barn of one…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Riceman v. Union Indemnity Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Kammerer v. SachsNew York Supreme Court · 1928
- Tutsbree v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1924
- State v. SievertNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928