State v. Cox

• Decision Date: 31 January 1860
• Citation: 29 Mo. 475
• Parties: THE STATE, Respondent, v. COX, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

29 Mo. 475

THE STATE, Respondent,

v.COX, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1860.

1.An indictment charging that the defendant“on, &c., at, &c., did unlawfully sell intoxicating liquors in less quantity than one gallon without then and there having a dram-shop keeper's license, or any other authority,” & c., is insufficient; the indictment should set forth the particular acts constituting the violation of the law upon which the indictment is framed.

Appeal from Dade Circuit Court.

______, for appellant.

Knott,(attorney general,) for the State.

I.It is not necessary to set forth in the indictment the particular kind of liquor sold.(6 Blackf. 105, 554;28 Pick. 275.)

SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The statute enacts that no person shall directly or indirectly sell intoxicating liquors in any quantity less than one gallon without taking out a license as a dram-shop keeper.The defendant was indicted under this section, and it is charged that on, &c., at, &c., he did unlawfully sell intoxicating liquors, in less quantity than one gallon, without then and there having a dram-shop keeper's license, or any other authority, &c.We have gone a great way in endeavoring to uphold the proceedings in criminal cases, but we see clearly that the further we go the further we are required to go.A case that barely escapes reversal is considered as establishing a principle, and it is used as a precedent by which we are required to make some still wider departure from the requirements of the law.There is no policy in this.The sooner the circuit attorneys are taught that they must have some regard to law in drawing their indictments the better it will be for the state, who will thereby save thousands in costs.The great liberality in the courts in this matter only begets carelessness...