State v. Haden
| Decision Date | 31 January 1852 |
| Citation | 15 Mo. 447 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. HADEN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM GREENE CIRCUIT COURT.
GARDENHIRE, Attorney-General, for The State.
HENDRICK, for Respondent.
The defendant, Joseph D. Haden, was indicted for selling a quart of whisky and suffering it to be drank at the place of sale without license. He appeared to the indictment and moved the court to quash it. The court sustained his motion; quashed the indictment, to which ruling of the court the State excepted and tendered her bill of exceptions and brings the case to this court by appeal. In looking into the indictment, I find that the defendant is charged with selling one “quart of whisky to John A. Gibson of the value of twenty cents, and suffered the same to be drank at the place of sale, without then and there having grocers, dramshop-keepers or inn-keepers' license authorizing said sale.” This indictment is bad. The negation of license is not broad enough. The defendant might well have sold the quart of whisky and suffered it to be drank at the place of sale, without either one of the licenses mentioned, and yet have not violated the law. He might have had a tavern license. Our law contemplates the grant of a tavern license, separate and distinct from an inn-keeper's license. See Sess. scts of 1849, p. 56. The rate of taxation is greater on one than on the other. The tavern license for one year cannot be less than twenty dollars. The innkeeper's license ten dollars for the same period. No matter how intimately and closely connected with each other these occupations may be, and how “like the same” they are in their design and effect, yet our Legislature has seen fit to separate and distinguish them, so far as license is concerned.(a) This indictment was therefore properly quashed by the court below, and the other Judges concurring, the judgment is affirmed.
(a). State v. Hornbeak, post, p. 478; State v. Wishon, post, p. 503; State v. Owen, post, p. 506; State v. Williamson, 19 Mo. R. 384; State v. Sutton, 25 Mo. R. 300; State v. Runyan, 26 Mo. R. 167; State v. Andrews, 26 Mo. R. 169; State v. Gregory, 27 Mo. R. 231. See also State v. Cox, 29 Mo. R. 475.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capitol Distributing Co. v. State
...198 S.E. 104; Carter v. State, 60 Ga.App. 758, 5 S.E.2d 244; Mathis v. State, 93 Ga. 38, 18 S.E. 996; Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435; State v. Haden, 15 Mo. 447; State v. Holder, 133 N.C. 709, 45 S.E. This does not mean that it is necessary to the validity of the indictment that every legal me......
-
Ledbetter v. United States
...in the enacting clause of the statute. U. S. v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168; Land Grant Co. v. Dawson, 151 U. S. 586, 604, 14 Sup. Ct. 458; State v. Haden, 15 Mo. 447; State v. Walsh, 14 R. I. 507; State v. Sommers, 3 Vt. 157; State v. Munger, 15 Vt. 290; Thompson v. State, 37 Ark. 408; State v. O'B......
-
State ex rel. Sch. Fund of Gentry Cnty. v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co.
...32; Hubbard v. Johnston, 3 Taunt. 177; Ingersoll v. Skinner, 1 Denio 540; State v. Brown,8 Mo. 211; Neals v. State, 10 Mo. 498; State v. Haden, 15 Mo. 447; State v. Lisles, 58 Mo. 359. The act of the legislature of 1881 is unconstitutional, both as to the constitution of this state and of t......
-
State of Missouri v. R. R. Hesse
... ... Judgment affirmed ... Lewis ... Myers for appellant ... (1) The ... information was fatally defective and stated no offense. Sec ... 5786, R. S. 1909; State v. Rinkard, 150 Mo.App. 570; ... State v. Crenshaw, 41 Mo.App. 24; State v ... Haden, 15 Mo. 447; State v. Runyan, 26 Mo. 167; ... Kelley's Criminal Law (3 Ed.), sec. 193. (2) The court ... should have set aside the verdict of the jury, and granted ... defendant a new trial on the grounds of prejudice and ... passion. State v. Castor, 93 Mo. 242; State v ... Primm, 98 Mo ... ...