State v. Roehm
| Decision Date | 31 October 1875 |
| Citation | 61 Mo. 82 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. CHARLES ROEHM, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court.
J. A. Hockaday, Att'y Gen'l, for Appellant.
The indictment pursues the language of the statute in every particular, and is good. (Wagn. Stat., 1090, § 27; Id. 504, § 35; State vs. Stubblefield, 32 Mo., 563.)
The offense committed was indictable under the law, as it existed at the time the same was preferred. Wagn. Stat., 516, § 30, was re-enacted February 21, 1871. ( Vide Acts 1871, p. 34.)
The offense, as appears from the indictment, was committed June 9th, 1872. The case of State vs. Huffschmidt, (47 Mo., 73) therefore has no application.Southgate & Seay, for Respondent.
The indictment alleged that the defendant did on the 9th day of June, 1872, unlawfully sell fermented and distilled liquors on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, contrary, etc.
To this indictment the defendant demurred, on the ground that no offense was charged known to the law, and that the violation of the statute was not set forth with the certainty that the law required. This demurrer was sustained by the court.
The statute declares that every person who shall expose for sale any goods, wares, or merchandise, or shall keep open any ale or porter house, grocery or tippling shop, or shall sell or retail any fermented or distilled liquor on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, shall on conviction be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined not exceeding fifty dollars. (Wagn. Stat., 504, § 35.)
The indictment followed the language of the statute in describing the offense and that was sufficient.
The court there fore erred in sustaining the demurrer, and its judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded; the other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stewart
...the sale of intoxicating liquor was held sufficient, citing Kelly's Crim. Law, sec. 1074, and State v. Melton, 38 Mo. 368. In State v. Roehm, 61 Mo. 82, the defendant was with selling fermented and distilled liquors on Sunday. The court held the indictment followed the language of the statu......
-
State v. Malone
... ... quash it should have been overruled. [State v ... Watts, 101 Mo.App. 658, 74 S.W. 377; State v ... Effinger, [238 Mo.App. 943] 44 Mo.App. 81; State v ... Dengolensky et al., 82 Mo. 44; State v ... Williamson, 21 Mo. 496; State v. Roehm, 61 Mo ... 82; State v. Kock, 61 Mo. 117; State v ... Nations, 75 Mo. 53.] ... Repeal ... of statutes by implication is not favored. [State ex rel ... St. Louis Police Relief Ass'n v. Igoe, 107 S.W.2d ... 929, 340 Mo. 1166; Graves v. Little Tarkio Drainage Dist ... No ... ...
-
State v. Stewart
...charging the sale of intoxicating liquor was held sufficient—citing Kelly's Crim. Law, § 1074, and State v. Melton, 38 Mo. 368. In State v. Roehm, 61 Mo. 82, the defendant was charged with selling fermented and distilled liquors on Sunday. The court held the indictment followed the language......
-
State v. Malone
...App. 658, 74 S.W. 377; State v. Effinger, 44 Mo. App. 81; State v. Dengolensky et al., 82 Mo. 44; State v. Williamson, 21 Mo. 496; State v. Roehm, 61 Mo. 82; State v. Kock, 61 Mo. 117; State v. Nations, 75 Mo. Repeal of statutes by implication is not favored. [State ex rel. St. Louis Police......