State v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 31 January 1867 |
| Citation | 39 Mo. 431 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. BURT ROGERS, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Barry Circuit Court.
Attorney-General, for appellant.
The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted of unlawfully selling spirituous and alcoholic liquors within this State without first having taken the oath and given the bond required by the statute--Laws of 1860-1, p. 93, § 4. The defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment for the reasons that the indictment did not specify the kind of liquor sold, nor the price, nor the person to whom sold, and that the verdict did not specify the offence of which the defendant was found guilty, and that the indictment was bad for duplicity. The motion was sustained, and the circuit attorney brings the case up by writ of error.
There was no sufficient ground here for arresting the judgment. It was not necessary that the person to whom sold, the price, or the particular kind of liquor sold, should be named or specified--State v. Melton, 38 Mo. 368; State v. Fanning, 38 Mo. 359; State v. Ladd, 15 Mo. 432; State v. Miller, 24 Mo. 532.
If the evidence sustained the charge contained in the indictment, a general verdict of guilty was enough--Frasier v. State, 5 Mo. 536. There was only one count, and one offence only was charged in the indictment. The indictment charged the selling of spirituous and alcoholic liquors, and the charge would be sustained by proof of the selling of either or both. It was not bad for duplicity.
Judgment reversed and the cause remanded.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stewart
...kind of liquor sold, the court holding that naming the particular kind of spiritous or alcoholic liquor was unnecessary. In State v. Rogers, 39 Mo. 431, the defendant was with selling spiritous and alcoholic liquors without first taking the oath and giving the bond prescribed by statute, th......
-
State v. Stewart
...kind of liquor sold, the court holding that naming the particular kind of spirituous or alcoholic liquor was unnecessary. In State v. Rogers, 39 Mo. 431, the defendant was charged with selling spirituous and alcoholic liquors without first taking the oath and giving the bond prescribed by s......
-
State v. Bennett
... ... have been held sufficient though they did not allege to whom ... or at what place the sales were made ( State v ... Spain (1860), 29 Mo. 415; State v. Jaques ... (1878), 68 Mo. 260; State v. Fanning (1866), 38 Mo ... 359), or what kind of liquor was sold ( State v ... Rogers (1867), 39 Mo. 431), or the price thereof ( ... State v. Ladd (1852), 15 Mo. 430). Elsewhere, also, ... we find cases that somewhat enlighten this investigation ... An ... indictment was held good in Huttenstein v. State ... (1861), 37 Ala. 157, which charged that ... ...
-
State v. Stock
... ... 284; State v ... Rafter, 62 Mo.App. 101. (2) It is not necessary to state ... the name of the person to whom the liquor was sold, nor the ... place where it was sold. State v. Ladd, 15 Mo. 430; ... State v. Miller, 24 Mo. 532; State v ... Fanning, 38 Mo. 359; State v. Rogers, 39 Mo ... 431; State v. Jaques, 68 Mo. 260; State v ... Elam, 21 Mo.App. 290; State v. Gibson, 61 ... Mo.App. 368. (3) Persons may be jointly indicted for selling ... liquor without license, or for any offense which may be ... committed by several. In such indictment it is not necessary ... ...