State v. Schmail

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Berry, J.
• Citation: State v. Schmail, 25 Minn. 368 (Minn. 1879)
• Decision Date: 10 January 1879
• Parties: State of Minnesota v. John Schmail. (First Case.)

25 Minn. 368

State of Minnesota v. John Schmail. (First Case.)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 10, 1879

Complaint was made against defendant before a justice of the peace for selling intoxicating liquor without a license, and a warrant was issued thereon. Neither the complaint nor the warrant stated the name of the person to whom the liquor was sold, nor that such name was unknown, nor any description of such person. On this ground, the defendant at the trial moved for a discharge, which motion was denied, and he was convicted and sentenced. On appeal to the district court for Dodge county, on questions of law alone, the judgment was affirmed, by Lord, J., and the defendant again appealed.

Judgment reversed.

B. F Latta and A. J. Edgerton, for appellant.

Geo. P Wilson, Attorney General, for the State.

OPINION

Berry, J.

This was a prosecution before a justice of the peace, for bartering, selling, furnishing, and giving away spirituous liquor, without a license. Neither the complaint nor the warrant contains any statement as to the person to whom the liquor was bartered, sold, furnished or given away. For this reason, both are insufficient. An offence charged should be described with certainty sufficient to inform the defendant of the particular thing with which he is charged. Otherwise he cannot know how to prepare his defence. Such certainty is also...