State v. Shenkle
| Citation | 36 Kan. 43,12 P. 309 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. WILLIAM SHENKLE |
| Decision Date | 09 December 1886 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Osage District Court.
PROSECUTION for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law. From a conviction and sentence at the September Term, 1885, the defendant Shenkle appeals. The opinion states the case.
Judgment affirmed.
Waters & Chase, for appellant.
S. B Bradford, attorney general, for The State; Edwin A. Austin of counsel.
OPINION
This was a criminal prosecution upon an indictment, wherein the defendant, William Shenkle, was charged in three counts with selling intoxicating liquor in violation of law, and in keeping and maintaining a nuisance. He was convicted under the first and second counts for selling intoxicating liquors, but was not convicted under the third count for keeping and maintaining a nuisance; and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $ 100 and to be imprisoned in the count jail for the period of thirty days. From this sentence he now appeals to this court.
I. It appears from an inspection of the indictment that the name of no witness by the name of Franklin was indorsed on the indictment; and yet the court in its instructions stated that the state had elected to rely upon an alleged sale of beer delivered by the witness Franklin to the witness Albert Hoover. The defendant now claims that error was committed by the court below in permitting the witness Franklin to testify. There is nothing further in the record that tends to show that any person by the name of Franklin testified on the trial, or what his testimony was, or that any objection was made to his testimony, or for whom he testified, if he did testify; and from. anything appearing in the record he may have testified on behalf of the defendant. Such a record certainly does not affirmatively show error; and error is never presumed.
II. The court instructed the jury, among other things, that if they found that "the defendant sold, bartered or gave any beer to the said Albert Hoover, delivered to him by the witness Franklin, without having a permit to sell intoxicating liquors as required by law, you [they] must find the defendant guilty," etc. The objection to this instruction is, that it directs the jury to find the defendant guilty if he merely "gave any beer" to Hoover. Now what the evidence in the case was, is not shown nor was any objection made or exception taken to this instruction. In all probability no material error was committed by the giving of this instruction. Certainly no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carr
...supported by no citation of authority. We are of opinion that defendant was properly charged under G.S.1935, 62-1016. Under State v. Shenkle, 36 Kan. 43, 12 P. 309, instruction was proper. See, also, State v. Irwin, 133 Kan. 509, 511, 300 P. 1098. The other instruction complained of is No. ......
-
State v. Smith, 38490
...on which error may be established.' (Syl. p1.) For other decisions to the same effect see State v. Boyle, 10 Kan. 113; State v. Shenkle, 36 Kan. 43, 44, 12 P. 309; State v. Schroeder, 103 Kan. 770, 771, 176 P. 659; State v. Lintner, 141 Kan. 505, 41 P.2d 1036; State v. Townsend, 150 Kan. 49......
-
Jahnke v. State
...60 N.W. 916; Hawkins v. State, 13 Ga. 322, 58 Am. Dec. 517; Brennan v. People, 15 Ill. 511; Williams v. State, 47 Ind. 568; State v. Shenkle, 36 Kan. 43, 12 P. 309. It also argued that the court erred in instructing the jury only as to the law of murder in the first degree, and gave no inst......
-
Dale v. State
...refused. 21 Ark. 69; 23 Ark. 730; 65 Ark. 222. 3. One who aids or assists in the sale of liquor is guilty as a principal. 83 Ill. 431; 36 Kan. 43; 113 Mich. 213; 74 323; 42 Tex.Crim. 600; 38 Id. 537; 37 Id. 505. OPINION WOOD, J. (after stating facts). It has often been ruled that one who ai......