Shepler v. State
| Decision Date | 30 March 1888 |
| Docket Number | 14,208 |
| Citation | 16 N.E. 521,114 Ind. 194 |
| Parties | Shepler v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Wells Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A. N Martin, for appellant.
L. T Michener, Attorney General, E. C. Vaughn, Prosecuting Attorney, and J. H. Gillett, for the State.
This was a prosecution against a druggist for selling intoxicating liquor on Sunday without a prescription from a physician, in violation of the provisions of section 2099, R. S. 1881.
The indictment charged "that Frank Shepler, on the 6th day of June, in the year 1886, at and in the county of Wells, in the State of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully sell to James M. Waid certain intoxicating liquor, to wit, one-half pint of intoxicating liquor, at and for the price of twenty-five cents, the said 6th day of June being Sunday, and the said Frank Shepler being then and there a druggist, he the said James M. Waid, not then and there having first procured a written prescription from some regular practicing physician of said county."
Upon a motion to quash, the indictment was held to be sufficient, and a jury found the defendant guilty as charged. Judgment followed upon the verdict.
Section 2099, referred to, is as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any druggist or druggist's clerk to sell, barter, or give away any spiritous, vinous, malt, or other intoxicating liquor on Sunday; or upon the fourth day of July, the first day of January, the twenty-fifth day of December (commonly called Christmas), thanksgiving day, or any legal holiday; or upon the day of any State, county, township, primary, or municipal election in the township, town, or city where the same may be holden; or between the hours of eleven o'clock p. m. and five o'clock a. m of any day, unless the person to whom the same is sold, bartered, or given shall have first procured a written prescription therefor from some regular practicing physician of the county where the same is so sold, bartered, or given away," for which a punishment appropriate to a misdemeanor is prescribed.
The objection made to the indictment was that the word "therefor" was omitted in its reference to Waid's failure to obtain a written prescription before purchasing the intoxicating liquor.
In describing a criminal offence in an indictment, it is safer to follow the language used in the statute which defines it, but this is not essential to the validity of the indictment. Equivalent words, or words conveying the same meaning, are sufficient. Moore Crim. Law, section 170, and authorities cited.
Certainty to a common intent only is required in the description of a criminal offence. R. S. 1881, section 1755; Woodward v. State, 103 Ind. 127, 2 N.E. 321.
The omission of merely formal words, where enough is alleged to indicate the offence, as well as the person charged, does not afford cause for quashing an indictment. R. S. 1881, section 1756; Mullen v. State, 96 Ind. 304; Walter v. State, 105 Ind. 589, 5 N.E. 735.
Having these general principles in view, the circuit court did not err in overruling the motion to quash the indictment.
The court instructed the jury, in effect, that the two years' statute of limitations applies to the offence charged in this case, and that hence, if the alleged sale was made on a Sunday at any time within two years before the indictment was returned, it was not barred by any statute of limitations.
Section 1594, R. S. 1881, provides that "Prosecutions for the desecration of the Sabbath-day must be commenced within six months after the commission of the offence."
It is claimed that the charge contained in the indictment before us constituted what amounted, in legal contemplation, only to a desecration of the Sabbath-day, and that, therefore, the limitation imposed by this last named section, instead of the two years' limitation, ought to have been applied. This claim has the merit of some plausibility, but is not, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial