State v. Carter
| Decision Date | 31 December 1846 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. CARTER. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Carter was convicted, at the criminal court of Davidson county, of the offense of retailing spirituous liquors. The judgment was arrested by Turner, the presiding judge, and the state appealed.
Attorney General, for the State.
Cooper, for defendant.
This is a bill of indictment against A. C. Carter, in the criminal court of Davidson county, for retailing spirituous liquors to a person unknown, contrary to law. Upon this bill of indictment the defendant was convicted.
Upon the trial, as the bill of exceptions shows, it was proven by a witness that he was in defendant's house, and saw two men come in, who were unknown to him, and call for brandy and sugar; that the defendant handed them a bottle containing liquor, out of which they both helped themselves, and that one of them threw some money on the counter, which the defendant received. After conviction the defendant moved the court to arrest the judgment, which motion was sustained. Whereupon the attorney general appealed to this court.
And it is now argued that the bill of indictment is bad, because it avers that the unlawful retailing was to persons unknown, and is, therefore, not sufficiently specific and certain in its charge.
We are not of this opinion. We see no reason why this bill of indictment may not charge the selling by retail to have been to persons unknown, as well as a bill of indictment for murder may charge that the person slain was unknown, or a bill of indictment for larceny may charge the goods stolen to be the property of a person or persons unknown. If there could be any difference, surely the greater certainty of description would and should be required in the higher offenses.
Let the judgment be reversed, and we, proceeding to give such judgment as the criminal court should have given, direct that the defendant be fined in the sum of 50 cents, and pay the costs of the prosecution in both courts.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halquist v. State
...was made, Galbreath v. State, supra, nor if it charges that the sale of liquor was 'to a person to the grand jurors unknown,' State v. Carter, 26 Tenn. 158. See also: State v. Harris, 34 Tenn. 224. Unquestionably, the same principle is applicable where, as here, the indictment charges the u......