State v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 31 July 1852 |
| Citation | 16 Mo. 551 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. COOPER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A person was indicted for a violation of the first section of the act of 1845, concerning “Groceries and Dram-shops,” in selling liquor without license. The indictment charged that he had sold one pint. The proof was that he had sold a half pint. Held, the proof was sufficient to sustain the indictment.
Appeal from Newton Circuit Court.
Gardenhire, attorney-general, for State.
If the evidence corresponds with the allegations, in respect to those facts and circumstances which, in point of law, are essential to the charge, it is sufficient. 1 Chitty's Crim. Law, 293. The allegation is the selling one pint of whisky. The circumstance essential to the charge is the selling of any quantity. The first section of the act concerning “Groceries and Dram-shops” prohibits the sale of any quantity of intoxicating liquors without license. If there is no license, the quantity sold is immaterial.
The defendant was indicted for selling spirituous liquor in less quantity than one quart, to-wit: One pint, without license. He was tried and convicted. On the trial the proof was that he sold a half pint of spirituous liquor to one Mansfield, for the price of ten cents, within the time laid in the indictment.
The defendant moved the court to instruct the jury “that, unless the quantity sold was one pint, they ought to find the defendant not guilty.” The court refused this instruction, the defendant excepted, and brings the case here by appeal.
There was no error in refusing to give the instruction prayed for. The offense consists in selling, without license, spirituous liquor in less quantity than a quart. A half pint makes the offense. The State was not bound to prove the exact quantity, so that the quantity proved to have been sold was such as the law forbade. Here the offense was completed by the sale of a half pint, equally as much as if the proof had shown the quantity to be a pint.
There is no error in the judgment of the court below; it is, therefore, with the concurrence of the other judges, affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strozier v. State
...essential element of the crime." The note to this text cites the following cases which support it: State v. Connell, 38 N. H. 81; State v. Cooper, 16 Mo. 551; State v. Andrews, 28 Mo. 17; State v. Moore, 14 N. H. 451; Brock v. Commonwealth, 6 Leigh (Va.) 634; Commonwealth v. Buck, 12 Metc. ......
-
City of Kansas v. Muhlback
...is sufficient. It is so held under the State law, which is broader in its terms than the ordinance. Wag. Stat., title Dram Shops; State v. Cooper, 16 Mo. 551. In State v. Andrews, 27 Mo. 267, the court said: “Each act of selling is a distinct offense.” State v. Small, 31 Mo. 197. Chase & Ki......
-
Strozier v. State
...need not be proved. Proof of sale of any quantity is sufficient. McClain on Cr. Law, § 1273; 13 Enc. of Ev. 732; 54 Minn. 105; 38 N.H. 81; 16 Mo. 551; 28 Id. 17; 14 N.H. 451; 6 634; 12 Metcalf (53 Mass.) 524; and others. There was no variance. OPINION SMITH, J. Appellant was convicted under......
- State v. Smith