State v. Crowley

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WAGNER
• Citation: State v. Crowley, 37 Mo. 369 (Mo. 1866)
• Decision Date: 28 February 1866
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. C. C. CROWLEY, Appellant.

37 Mo. 369

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,

v.C. C. CROWLEY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February Term, 1866.

Appeal from Linn Circuit Court.

Vories & Vories, for appellant.

The indictment should either have stated facts sufficient to show whether it was intended to charge defendant for selling liquor without giving the bond required by the law concerning dramshops, (R. C. 1855, p. 648, § 8,) or whether it was for failing to give the bond required uuder the act to tax and license merchants, (R. C. 1855, pp. 1073-7, §§ 1-4 & 22,) or whether it was for selling liquors without giving the bond required by the law of 1861, entitled “An act to prevent the adulteration of spirituous liquors in this State.” (Acts of 1860-61, p. 92.)

This indictment is uncertain. It should be so certain that the defendant could not be mistaken in reference to the specific crime with which he is charged, and so that the court can tell what judgment to render if a plea of guilty was pleaded by the defendant. (State v. Heelan, 6 Mo. 263; Dameron v. State, 8 Mo. 494; Conner v. State, 14 Mo. 561; 1 Arch. Crim. Pl. & Pr. 282 and notes; People v. Allen, 5 Denio, 76.)

Wright, for respondent.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was indicted at the April term of the Linn county Circuit Court, in 1865, for unlawfully selling spirituous liquors without first appearing before the county court clerk of the county of Linn, and giving bond as required by law. He filed his motion to quash the indictment, and assigned as reason: “1. Said indictment does not charge sufficient facts upon its face to constitute any offence under the law. 2. The indictment does not negative the exceptions named in the 6th section of the act under which this indictment is found. 3. The indictment is in other respects defective, informal and insufficient.”

The court overruled a motion to quash, and on a trial the defendant was found guilty and fined fifty dollars.

The indictment was founded on the fourth section of “An act to prevent the adulteration of spirituous liquors in this State,” approved March 28, 1861, which declares that it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to sell or offer to sell any spirituous or alcoholic liquors within the State, until he, she, or they, shall first appear before the county court clerk of the county where such liquors are to be sold, or offered for sale and take and subscribe to an oath not to mix or adulterate, with any substance whatever, the liquors offered for sale; and give bond in the sum of five hundred...