Stack v. State
| Decision Date | 24 May 1910 |
| Citation | 109 P. 126,4 Okla.Crim. 1,1910 OK CR 114 |
| Parties | STACK et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
An assignment of error to the effect that the court erred in not causing a copy of the information to be served on the defendant is not available on appeal, where the record fails to show that the defendant did not have a copy of the information or that he ever made a demand therefor.
An assignment of error to the effect that the court erred in not causing a copy of the information to be served on the defendant is not available, if the defendant was at large could have seen the original information on proper application, and could have taken a copy thereof, if he desired.
Errors to which no exceptions were taken below, and not fundamental in character, will not be considered on appeal.
Assignments of error, not noticed in plaintiff in error's brief or oral argument, will be treated as abandoned.
An employer engaged in the unlawful business of selling liquor is criminally liable for a sale made by his employé in the course of the employer's business, whether such employer be present and consenting to the particular sale or not.
The state is not precluded from prosecuting a violation of the prohibition law because the purchase of the liquor was made by an informer, at the instance of the sheriff, and for the purpose of instituting a prosecution.
Appeal from Comanche County Court; James H. Wolverton, Judge.
W. H Stack and H. Stermer were convicted of selling intoxicating liquor illegally, and appeal. Affirmed.
Ray & Cunningham, for plaintiffs in error.
Fred S Caldwell, for the State.
The assignments of error in this court are that the court below erred in overruling the motion of plaintiffs in error for a new trial; that the court erred in overruling their motion in arrest of judgment; that the court erred in entering judgment and sentence against them upon the information and testimony in said cause; and that the court erred in not causing a copy of the information in said cause to be furnished to plaintiffs in error prior to the trial.
As to the last assignment, it is sufficient to say that the record nowhere discloses that plaintiffs in error did not have a copy of the information, or that they ever made a demand for a copy thereof. It appears from the record that they were at large; and for aught the record shows they could have seen the original information upon application, and could have taken a copy thereof if they desired. This assignment appears to have been an afterthought, and was not raised in the lower court. It is, therefore, not available here.
The motion in arrest of...
To continue reading
Request your trial