State v. Lantz
Court of Appeals of Kansas
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. — Hon. John P. Butler, Judge. (1) The prosecution in this case is bottomed on section 3047, Revised Statutes 1899. We submit, that the evidence is too indefinite and is wholly insufficient to support the verdict. It is necessary to allege in the indictment and prove the person to whom the sale was made.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. — Hon. John P. Butler, Judge. (1) The prosecution in this case is bottomed on section 3047, Revised Statutes 1899. We submit, that the evidence is too indefinite and is wholly insufficient to support the verdict. It is necessary to allege in the indictment and prove the person to whom the sale was made. State v. Martin, 108 Mo. 117. (2) No good reason is perceived why the State should not also be required to prove the date as laid in the indictment; indeed the same argument given as a reason why the name should be alleged and proven applies with equal or…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
The defendant, a druggist, was indicted, tried and convicted for a violation of section 3047, Revised Statutes 1899. He seeks by his appeal here to reverse the judgment on the ground that the evidence adduced at *17the trial was insufficient to support the same.
One Duncan, who was the only witness introduced by the prosecution, testified that he had bought liquor of defendant, in less quantities than four gallons without a prescription, within one year next before the thirteenth day of December, 1899 — the day of the filing of the indictment — and that it was sometime during-the previous summer.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. CarnahanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- State v. BradfordMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. FellersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- State v. McAnallyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Webb City v. ParkerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903