State v. Hornbeak
Decision Date | 31 January 1852 |
Citation | 15 Mo. 478 |
Parties | THE STATE v. HORNBEAK. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM GREENE CIRCUIT COURT.
GARDENHIRE, Attorney-General, for The State. 1. The indictment charges the absence of a license generally, and is sufficient. State v. Brown, 8 Mo. R. 212; affirmed in Neales v. The State, 10 Mo. R. 500. 2. The indictment negatives “any legal authority to sell” whatever. This general (8 Mo. R. 212)negation necessarily includes the negative contended for. 3. In an indictment for selling spiritous liquors by the small, an averment for the sale of rum, brandy and gin, is sufficient, without an averment that they were spiritous liquors. They are different species of spiritous liquors, considering that the genus. State v. Munger, 15 Vt. R. 295.
HENDRICK, for Respondent.
The defendant, James F. Hornbeak, was indicted for selling one-half pint of brandy and suffering it to be drank at the place of sale without license. He appeared to the indictment and moved the court to quash the same, which motion the court sustained; the State excepted to the opinion of the court quashing the indictment, filed her bill of exceptions and brought the case here by appeal. In looking into the indictment I find that it charges that the defendant did “unlawfully sell one half-pint of brandy of the value of ten cents to one William Pryor, and suffered the same to be drank at the place of sale, without then and there having a grocery license, dramshop-keeper's license, an inn-keeper's license, or any legal authority to sell said brandy in manner and form aforesaid.”(a) This case differs from the one of The State v. Haden, just decided by this court. Here the negation as to license is broad enough; it negatives grocers, dramshop-keepers, inn-keeper's, or any legal authority to sell. This indictment is substantially good. It is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Barr
...may be rejected as surplusage and the remainder of the count held good. Whart. Crim. Prac. and Plead. [8 Ed.] sec. 401; State v. Hornbeck, 15 Mo. 478; Rev. Stat., 1821. No brief for the defendant in error. HALL, J. No objection to the indictment has suggested itself to us in addition to the......
-
People v. Sweetser
...allegation which the Indiana court decided to be bad.” Clare v. State, 5 Iowa, 509;Wrocklege v. State, 1 Iowa, 167;vide, also, State v. Hornbeak, 15 Mo. 478;State v. Arbogast, 24 Mo. 363; Com. v. Leonard, 8 Metc. 530; Com. v. Odlin, 23 Pick. 275;Com. v. Hatcher, 6 Grat. 667; State v. Mooty,......
- Holland v. Hunton
-
Meis v. Geyer
... ... Sunderland, Mo. Sup. Ct. (not reported).COLLIER & MUENCH, for respondent: Legislative intent.-- Schultz v. Pacific R. Co, 36 Mo. 13; The State v. Jaeger, 63 Mo. 409. An action against the endorser is an action on the note.--Wag. Stat. 217, sec. 16; 2 Bouv. L. Dic. 386; Story on Prom. Notes, ... ...