State v. Fanning
| Decision Date | 31 July 1866 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. ROBERT FANNING, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Dade Circuit Court.
T. A. Sherwood, for appellant.
Attorney General, for respondent.
The reason assigned on the motion to quash and in arrest of judgment, that the indictment does not charge that the liquor was sold in a less quantity than one quart, is untrue in fact; the indictment expressly charges the quantity to have been one pint. The indictment is for a violation of § 1, ch. 57, R. C. 1855, p. 683, and sufficiently charges an offence under the same. The fact that the accused may have been privileged to sell the liquor by virtue of some other statute is not necessary to be negatived in an indictment under this section-- State v. Buford, 10 Mo. 703; 15 Mo. 430; 24 Mo. 363 & 532.
The well settled rule is that it is only necessary to charge the offence in the words of the act, and to show such acts as are necessary to constitute the offence, negativing only such exceptions as are included in the clause creating the offence. All other justifications or excuses must be pleaded and shown by the accused.
The indictment charged the defendant with “unlawfully selling a large quantity of intoxicating liquors, to-wit, one pint of whiskey, without then and there having a dram-shop license, or any other legal authority.” This indictment does not even pursue the language of the statute. The gravamen of the offence consists in selling intoxicating liquors in a less quantity than one gallon. It may be true that he sold a pint, but as a part of the larger quantity alleged to have been sold. This is a greater laxity in pleading than can be allowed. The exact quantity is immaterial, provided it be a less quantity than one gallon. but this fact should be distinctly averred, as well as the quantity sold.
Judgment reversed.
Judge Wagner concurs; Judge Lovelace absent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Schleuter
... ... Mo.App. 602; State v. Apperger, 80 Mo. 173; ... State v. Neals, 10 Mo. 498; State v ... Larimore, 20 Mo. 426; State v. Runyan, 26 Mo ... 168; State v. Andrews, 26 Mo. 170; State v ... Hornbeck, 15 Mo. 479; State v. Wishon, 15 Mo ... 504; State v. Cox, 29 Mo. 475; State v ... Fanning, 38 Mo. 409; State v. Fanning, 38 Mo. 359 ... ... [110 ... Mo.App. 9] ELLISON, J ... The ... defendant was indicted, tried and convicted for violating ... section 3011, Revised Statutes 1899, reading as follows: ... ...
-
The State v. Hughes
...Case, 9 Q. B. 80; Reg. v. Harris, 1 Denison, C. C. 466; Reg. v. Rowlands, 2 Denison, C. C. 377; State v. Bengsch, 170 Mo. 104; State v. Fanning, 38 Mo. 409. Had there been change in the statute, i. e., had it read as it now reads, all the way back, there would be no limitations, as rape is ......
-
The State v. Clinkenbeard
...a quantity less than the maximum, and that it shall be of a certain quantity within that limit. The omission of either is fatal. State v. Fanning, 38 Mo. 409; State Ryan, 30 Mo.App. 161; State v. Greenhagen, 36 Mo.App. 24; State v. Baskett, 52 Mo.App. 393; State v. Stephens, 62 Mo.App. 232;......
-
State v. Clinkenbeard
...be alleged what quantity the less quantity was. In connection with the authorities just cited the following should be read: State v. Fanning, 38 Mo. 409; State v. Ryan, 30 Mo. App. 161; State v. Greenhagen, 36 Mo. App. 24; State v. Baskett, 52 Mo. App. 393; State v. Stephens, 62 Mo. App. 23......