State v. May
Citation | 52 Kan. 53,34 P. 407 |
Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. L. R. MAY |
Decision Date | 01 July 1893 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Reno District Court.
FEBRUARY 6, 1893, May was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors. He appeals. The opinion states the facts.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Davidson & Williams, for appellant.
John T Little, attorney general, and James McKinstry, county attorney, for The State.
OPINION
The defendant was charged in two counts with unlawful sales of intoxicating liquors, and, in the third count, with keeping a nuisance. He was convicted under the first and third counts. The first complaint is, that the third count of the information was amended after the jury had been sworn, by inserting the words, "and maintained by said defendant, L. R. May." We think the amendment was an immaterial one, and that the offense was sufficiently charged without it. It was admitted on the trial that the defendant sold "hop tea" and in bottles, and the only question at issue on the trial was, whether the liquors sold were intoxicating liquors, within the meaning of the law. Included in the charge to the jury we find the following:
These instructions do not correctly state the law. The statute does not make any liquor intoxicating, but prescribes the punishment for the sale of those that are really so. The presence of malt in any compound does not necessarily make it an intoxicating liquor at all. It is not the presence or absence of any one particular ingredient that brings the compound within the prohibition of the statute, as was said by this court in Intoxicating-Liquor Cases, 25 Kan. 751:
And on page 768 of the same opinion:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moreno v. State
...81 Ga. 753, 7 S. W. 631, 12 Am. St. Rep. 350; (Indiana) Welsh v. State, 126 Ind. 71, 25 N. E. 883, 9 L. R. A. 664; (Kansas) State v. May, 52 Kan. 53, 34 Pac. 407; (Kentucky) Locke v. Com. 74 S. W. 654, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 76; (Minnesota) State v. Tisdale, 54 Minn. 105, 55 N. W. 903; (Missouri) ......
-
Chapman v. Boynton
...Supreme Court. The same court has held that beer is presumed to be intoxicating under the Kansas prohibitory liquor law. State v. May, 52 Kan. 53, 34 P. 407. The right to regulate the use, or to prohibit the use, manufacture, or sale, of liquor within a state, is a valid exercise of the pol......
-
Moffitt v. People
...liquor, without further proof. Among the authorities sustaining this view are Williams v. State, 72 Ark. 19, 77 S.W. 597; State v. May, 52 Kan. 53, 34 P. 407; Briffitt State, 58 Wis. 39, 16 N.W. 39, 46 Am.Rep. 621; State v. Besheer, 69 Mo.App. 72; Sothman v. State, 66 Neb. 302, 92 N.W. 303.......
- State v. Petrogalli