Freeburg v. State
| Citation | 138 N.W. 143,92 Neb. 346 |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1912 |
| Docket Number | No. 17,529.,17,529. |
| Parties | FREEBURG v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
FREEBURG
v.
STATE.
No. 17,529.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Nov. 1, 1912.
The instruction set out in the opinion is held to be an erroneous definition of drunkenness and a state of intoxication.
The doctor who was called to testify as a witness on behalf of the state, and who dressed the wounds of the defendant, was incompetent to testify to the defendant's condition over the objection of the defendant that he was disqualified by reason of section 333 of the Code.
Though one may be said to be under the influence of liquor, he is not necessarily intoxicated, this being far short of “intoxication” which is the synonym of “inebriety” and “drunkenness”; the word “intoxicated” being synonymous with “drunk,” and “drunk” being defined in the Standard Dictionary as to have lost the normal control of one's bodily and mental faculties (citing 4 Words and Phrases, 3734, 3735).
Error to District Court, Phelps County; Dungan, Judge.
Gust Freeburg was found guilty of drunkenness, and brings error. Reversed.
James I. Rhea, of Holdrege, for plaintiff in error.
A. J. Shafer, of Holdrege, for the State.
HAMER, J.
The plaintiff in error, Gust Freeburg, hereafter designated as the defendant, was complained against in the police court of the city of Holdrege July 5, 1911, and was charged with the violation of an alleged ordinance in that city on July 4, 1911. The plaintiff charged that the said Gust Freeburg “on or about the 4th day of July, A. D. 1911, in the county last named (Phelps) and within the corporate limits of the city of Holdrege, then and there being, did then and there unlawfully become drunk and was then and there found in a state of intoxication and drunkenness contrary to section 44 of Ordinance 45 of the Compiled and Revised Ordinances of the city of Holdrege.” The defendant was found guilty in the police court, and sentenced to pay a fine of $10 and costs. He appealed to the district court, and was there convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $1 and costs. He brings the case here for review.
Upon that point there seems to be a conflict of evidence, but there is no conflict touching the fact that the defendant was going home with a Mr. Levine and the city marshal started to arrest him, and the defendant and Levine begged him not to make the arrest. The city marshal struck the defendant over the head with his revolver, but claims in justification that the defendant and Levine objected to the arrest, and finally resisted. At the time this...
To continue reading
Request your trial