State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 13 November 1891 |
| Docket Number | 406 |
| Citation | 29 N.E. 274,3 Ind.App. 121 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. JONES ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Boone Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
H. P. New, Prosecuting Attorney, for the State.
This was a prosecution by indictment against the appellees, upon a charge of unlawfully selling "whiskey" on Christmas day. Section 2098, R. S. 1881.
Upon the motion of the appellees, the indictment was quashed. The State appeals to this court.
We have not been favored with a brief from the counsel for the appellees, but are informed by the brief of the prosecuting attorney that the only objection made to the indictment, and the one on which the court based its ruling upon the motion to quash, was, that the indictment charged the appellees with the unlawful sale of one gill of whiskey, without alleging that the whiskey sold was "intoxicating liquor," the words used in the statute.
It is sufficient to allege merely that the liquor sold was intoxicating, without specifying the particular kind. On the other hand, the word "intoxicating" may be omitted, if the liquor charged as having been sold unlawfully is such that the court judicially knows that it possesses the intoxicating quality, such liquor, for example, as whiskey. Carmon v. State, 18 Ind. 450; Eagan v. State, 53 Ind. 162; Schlicht v. State, 56 Ind. 173; Klare v. State, 43 Ind. 483, where Carmon v. State, supra, is approvingly referred to. See, also, Myers v. State, 93 Ind. 251; Mullen v. State, 96 Ind. 304; Stout v. State, 93 Ind. 150; Fenton v. State, 100 Ind. 598; Dant v. State, 106 Ind. 79, 5 N.E. 870; Callahan v. State, 2 Ind.App. 417, 28 N.E. 717; Commonwealth v. Peckham, 2 Gray 514; Gillett Crim. Law, section 591.
The court below erred in sustaining the motion to quash.
The judgment is reversed, at the costs of the appellee; cause remanded, with instructions to overrule the motion to quash the indictment, and for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 2004-0783.
... ... Page 479 ... COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED ... Page 480 ... COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED ... Page 481 ... Jones Day, J. Kevin Cogan, Jack A. Van Kley, and Jonathan K. Stock, Columbus; James R. Silver, City of Kent Law Director, Kent; Virgil E. Arrington, City ... Lack of an adequate supply of water contributed to the extent of the loss. Also, at about the same time, the State Board of Health determined Akron's water to be unsafe ... {¶ 3} As a result of these conditions, Akron hired two engineers, ... ...
-
Waring v. City of Little Rock
...As to them, it is no more than a reference to a brook or other natural object. 63 Mich. 165; 12 A. 664; 16 id. 631, 59 Ark. 12; 25 P. 673; 29 N.E. 274. J. Blackwood, City Attorney, for appellee. The proof shows that this property has been used as a public thoroughfare for thirty years. All ......
-
Florida Southern R. Co. v. Hill
... ... Railroad Co., 56 Vt ... 96, held that, although the vendor's lien had been ... expressly abolished in that state, yet, in a case where a ... railroad company had entered upon land by agreement with the ... owner, with an understanding that the damages caused ... ...
-
Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Singletery
...judgment appealed from, maintain ejectment. Railroad Company v. Robbins, 35 Ohio St. 531; Longworth v. Cincinnati, 48 Ohio St. 637, s.c. 29 N.E. 274. W. Easterling, for appellee. The deed of the husband, William Singleterry, which purports to convey to the railroad company the fee-simple ti......