State v. Bodeckar

• Citation: 39 P. 645,11 Wash. 417
• Parties: STATE v. BODECKAR.
• Decision Date: 16 March 1895
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

39 P. 645

11 Wash. 417

STATE v. BODECKAR.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 16, 1895

Appeal from superior court, King county; Richard Osborn, Judge.

An information charging John Doe Bodeckar with selling liquor without a license was dismissed, and the state appeals. Reversed.

John F Miller, Pros. Atty., and A. G. McBridge, for the State.

ANDERS J.

The prosecuting attorney filed an information in the superior court of King county accusing the defendant of the crime of selling intoxicating liquor without having obtained a license therefor from the proper authorities. The offense is alleged to have been committed as follows: "John Doe Bodeckar whose true Christian name is to the prosecuting attorney unknown, in King county, state of Washington, on the 4th day of July, 1894, unlawfully and willfully did sell and dispose of, for and in consideration of money, intoxicating malt liquor, to wit, beer, commonly known and designated as 'lager beer,' to a person and persons whose name is to the prosecuting attorney unknown, said malt liquor then and there being an intoxicating liquor, and not then and there sold upon the written prescription of any reputable physician, or for medical, mechanical, or scientific purposes, but for the purpose of beverage only said intoxicating liquor as aforesaid then and there not sold within the corporate limits of any city, town, or village, or within one mile of the corporate limits of any city, town, or village, or within one mile of the corporate limits of the same, he the said John Doe Bodeckar, whose true Christian name is unknown to the prosecuting attorney, as aforesaid not then and there having a license issued by the proper authorities to sell intoxicating liquors in King county, state of Washington." It does not appear that the defendant either interposed a motion to set aside the information or demurred thereto, but it does appear that the cause was regularly called for trial, that a jury was regularly impaneled and sworn, and that a witness was called upon the part of the state. The defendant then objected to the introduction of any evidence for the alleged reason that the information does not state an offense. The court, after argument, sustained the objection, and thereupon released the defendant from custody, exonerated his bondsmen, and discharged the jury. From such judgment the state prosecutes this appeal.

This action was instituted under section 133 of the Penal Code. The crime charged is therefore a statutory one, and the sufficiency of the information must be tested by the provisions of the statute itself. Section 1234 of the Code of Procedure provides that the indictment or information must contain (1) the title of the action, specifying the name of the court to which the indictment or information is presented, and the names of the parties; (2) a statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended. Section 1244 states when an indictment or information is sufficient, and it seems to us that the information in question is in substantial conformity to these sections of the Code. It is evident that the acts constituting the offense charged in this instance are stated in ordinary and concise language, and in such a manner as to enable any person of ordinary understanding to know what was intended, and that is all that the law requires in charging the offense. It is stated in the brief of counsel for the appellant that the court deemed the information insufficient, for the reason that it did not state the name of the person or persons to whom the liquor therein mentioned was sold. It is true that the name of the person to whom the beer was sold is not stated in the information, but many courts hold that in cases of this character...