State v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 06 May 1912
• Citation: 147 S.W. 520
• Parties: STATE v. MURPHY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

147 S.W. 520

STATE v. MURPHY.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 6, 1912.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1912.

1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 211) — INFORMATION—REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY.

Under Laws 1911, pp. 261, 262, § 1, making it unlawful for any person to have any nonalcholic drinks in his possession for sale which are misbranded, and section 4, providing that such drinks are misbranded, if the bottle containing them bears the name or brand of a manufacturer other than the one using it, an information, charging accused with having such drinks in his possession, manufactured by himself and branded Q. Bottling Company and S. Bottling Company, but not alleging whether those were names of corporations, partnerships, or trade-names assumed by an individual, is insufficient, since accused would not be guilty, unless they were the names of other manufacturers; and the information does not show what proof accused would have to meet.

2. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION (§ 71)— REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY.

A charge in an indictment or information must be so specific that the party charged will not be required to go beyond the information or indictment to learn the nature of the charge, or the issues which he must meet.

3. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 211)—INFORMATION—REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY—"MANUFACTURES"—"MANUFACTURERS."

An information, charging accused with having in his possession nonalcoholic drinks bearing the names of "manufactures" other than himself, is insufficient under Laws 1911, pp. 261, 262, §§ 1, 4, making it unlawful for any person to have nonalcoholic drinks bearing the name or brand of "manufacturers" other than himself; "manufactures" and "manufacturers" not being idem sonans, but separate and distinct terms with separate and distinct meanings.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Greene County; Alfred Page, Judge.

R. E. Murphy was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

J. J. Gideon and J. C. West, both of Springfield, for appellant. J. H. Mason, Pros. Atty., of Springfield, for the State.

COX, J.

From a conviction upon a charge of having in his possession, with intent to sell, certain nonalcoholic drinks, which were misbranded, defendant has appealed.

The only question raised in this court goes to the sufficiency of the information, which is as follows: "J. H. Mason, prosecuting attorney within and for the county of Greene, in the state of Missouri, under his oath of office informs the court that R. E. Murphy, late of the county and state aforesaid, on the 26th day of July, A. D. 1911, at the county of Greene and state of Missouri, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, with intent to sell the same, certain nonalcoholic drinks, which nonalcoholic drinks were manufactured and produced by the said R. E. Murphy, to wit, one bottle of Colo Coke, two bottles of Chocolate Soda, and one bottle of Strawberry Soda, which were then and there misbranded, in this: That is to say, two of said bottles, as aforesaid, were then and there branded Queen City Broom & Bottling Company, Springfield, Missouri, and two of said bottles were branded Scholten Bottling Company, Springfield, Missouri, and all were marked registered, said bottles then and there bearing the name of manufactures other than the said R. E. Murphy, who was then and there using the same, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state."

There are two objections...