State v. Ingram

• Decision Date: 24 April 1906
• Citation: 94 S.W. 790,118 Mo.App. 323
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. INGRAM and ADAMS, Appellants
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

94 S.W. 790

118 Mo.App. 323

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. INGRAM and ADAMS, Appellants

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

April 24, 1906

Appeal from Ripley Circuit Court.--Hon. J. C. Sheppard, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

STATEMENT.--Defendants were informed against in the circuit court by the prosecuting attorney for maintaining a public nuisance in Ripley county. The charging part of the information is as follows:

Said defendants "did then and there unlawfully commit and maintain a public nuisance, at a certain place and building situated south of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company's depot at and near the city of Doniphan in said Ripley county, said place and building being commonly known as the Showman & Nance saloon building, by then and there running a common tippling-house and place where intoxicating liquors were daily and continuously sold contrary to law; and that said defendants daily and continuously sold intoxicating liquors unlawfully, to divers minors, whose names are unknown to the prosecuting attorney that said defendants would permit persons to congregate at said place and building and become intoxicated on liquor sold to said persons unlawfully; that the names of said persons are unknown to the prosecuting attorney; that said defendants would permit quarrels and fights at said place and building and thereby cause disturbances, all to the great injury and annoyance of the inhabitants of the State of Missouri, and against the peace and dignity of the State."

Upon a trial being had before a jury, there was an abundance of evidence introduced on behalf of the State tending to prove that defendants maintained a tippling-house, where liquors were sold to whomsoever cared to buy and persons became intoxicated in and about said tippling-house.

On behalf of the State, the court instructed on the merits of the case as follows:

"The court instructs the jury that if you find and believe from the evidence in this case, that the defendants or either of them, at any time within one year next before the filing of the information in this cause, which was on the 9th day of June, 1905, at and in the county of Ripley and State of Missouri in a building known as the Showman & Nance saloon building, did then and there conduct a common tippling-house that is to say, a place where intoxicating drinks were sold in drams to be drunk upon the premises from time to time, and where persons resorted for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors from time to time, then you will find the defendants guilty as charged in the information and assess the punishment at a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding one year or by both such fine and imprisonment; and you are further instructed that you may find either one of the defendants guilty and the other not guilty according as you may believe from the evidence that he did or did not conduct the place as defined in this instruction.

"4. The court instructs the jury that before you can find the defendants, or either of them, guilty as charged in the information, you must find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they, or either of them, conducted in a building, commonly known as the Showman & Nance saloon building, a tippling-house or dramshop, where liquors are sold and persons congregated for the purpose of dram-drinking and purchasing such intoxicating liquors and that the defendants had no license or other authority to sell intoxicating liquors at such place.'"

There were no other instructions given on the elements of the offense, but the court also charged the jury on the question of reasonable doubt and other pertinent matters not necessary to mention here.

Defendants requested the court to instruct the jury that before they, or either of them, could be found guilty, it was necessary for the jury to find from the evidence that defendants "or either of them maintained a public nuisance to the annoyance or injury to any portion of the inhabitants of this State." This the court refused. The jury found both defendants guilty, upon which verdict judgment was entered and defendants appeal here.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

John M. Atkinson for appellant.

Thomas F. Lane and James F. Fulbright for respondent.

NORTONI, J. Bland, P. J., and Goode, J., concur.

OPINION

NORTONI, J. (after stating the facts).

The statute on which the information is predicated, is as follows:

"Every person who shall erect or maintain any public nuisance not...