Isbell v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1850 |
| Citation | 13 Mo. 86 |
| Parties | ISBELL v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
See Hays v. State, post, p. 246.
HENDRICK, for Appellant.
STRINGFELLOW, Attorney, General, for The State.
As this case depends precisely upon the same question that was passed upon by this court during its recent term at St. Louis, the opinion in that case (Hays v. The State), need only be referred to as embodying sufficient reasons for affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court in the present one. It is accordingly affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
City of Troy v. Harris
...ground that he acted for his employer, as has always been held in prosecutions for selling intoxicating liquors without a license. Isbell v. State, 13 Mo. 86; State v. Keith, 46 Mo. App. 525; State v. O'Connor, 65 Mo. App. 324. None of those cases furnishes, in its facts or principles, a pr......
-
City of Troy v. Harris
... ... butter, lard, honey, meal, fruit, melons, vegetables and the ... articles usually kept for sale by grocers under the State law ... shall be considered a grocer and take out license ... "Section ... 3. Merchants and grocers shall pay an ad valorem tax ... ...
-
Town of Kirkwood v. Autenreith
...by plaintiff, and in giving the instructions given on its own motion and one asked by defendant.-- Casey v. The State, 6 Mo. 646; Isbell v. The State, 13 Mo. 86; Hays v. The State, 13 Mo. 246; The State v. Bryant, 14 Mo. 340; Schmidt v. The State, 14 Mo. 137. The court erred in not granting......
-
The State v. Quinn
...313. (2) The trial court properly refused the "collusion instruction" offered by defendant. 1 Bishop's New Crim. Law, pp. 401, 402; Isbell v. State, 13 Mo. 86; State v. 46 Mo.App. 525; Hays v. State, 13 Mo. 246; State v. Bryant, 14 Mo. 340. (3) A defendant on trial for selling liquors witho......
Request a trial to view additional results