State v. Williamson

• Decision Date: 31 July 1855
• Citation: 21 Mo. 496
• Parties: THE STATE, Appellant, v. WILLIAMSON, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

21 Mo. 496

THE STATE, Appellant,

v.WILLIAMSON, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1855.

1. An indictment under the 34th section of the 8th article of the act concerning crimes and punishments, (R. C. 1845,) which charges the defendant with selling “an intoxicating liquor, to-wit: one quart of whisky, on Sunday,” is sufficient, although it does not state in the words of the statute that it was a “fermented or distilled liquor.”

Appeal from Laclede Circuit Court.

The defendant was indicted for selling liquor on Sunday. The indictment charged that the defendant, “on, &c., at, &c., with, &c., did then and there sell to William Kudy and John McGenis, intoxicating liquor, to-wit: one quart of whisky, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, for the price and sum of twenty cents, contrary,” &c. A motion to quash the indictment was sustained by the Circuit Court, and the State appealed.

Gardenhire, (attorney general,) for the State, that the indictment was sufficient, cited State v. Munger, 15 Vermont, 295. State v. Hereford, 13 Mo. Rep. 3.

No appearance for respondent.

LEONARD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This indictment is sufficient. The statute (R. C. 1845, tit. “Crimes and Punishments,” article 8, sec. 24,) prohibits the selling of any fermented or distilled liquor on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, and the indictment charges the defendant with selling “an intoxicating liquor, to-wit: one quart of whisky, on Sunday.” It is believed the general rule now is, that it is enough to describe the offence in any language that brings the case within the statute. Formerly, greater nicety prevailed upon this subject, and at an early period in our law the rule seems to have been that the very words in the statute must be used in cases of felony (2 Hawk. Pleas of the Crown, 354); but this is now otherwise, and the rules of common sense are allowed to prevail. In the King against Amy, (2 East. R. 34,) where the question was as to the sufficiency of the allegations in the indictment to bring the case within the statute, Lord Kenyon said: “In certain cases, it is true there must be known technical words used in order to describe particular offences, such as murdravit, in murder; burglariter, in burglary; rapuit, in rape. These having been long ago established to be necessary, must be abided by. But there is no rule of law which says there must be technical words in every case, nor am I inclined to multiply the...