The State v. Pischel
| Decision Date | 01 July 1884 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ANTON PISCHEL, DEFENDANT IN ERROR |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
MOTION for rehearing of case ante p. 490.
REHEARING DENIED.
On a motion for a rehearing, filed by the district attorney, it is suggested that certain questions presented by his brief in the former hearing of this cause were not finally determined, and that such decision is essential in order to a proper enforcement of the law. It is thought expedient to decide the questions suggested without a further hearing or imposing the expense of printing additional briefs.
The first question presented is, whether or not it is necessary in an indictment for selling the prohibited liquors to allege the name of the person to whom the liquors were sold? To this question we answer, Yes. The statute makes each act of selling a crime. It is proper that that act be so described as to identify it from other acts of a similar kind as near as practicable. And this can be best done by giving the name of the vendee if known, or if unknown so alleged. Bishop on Statutory Crimes, section 1037, and cases cited in note 2. Also see State v. Doyle, 11 R.I. 574.
The next question presented is, whether or not it is necessary to specify in indictments for what price the liquor was sold. In some states it has been held necessary to so allege, but the general doctrine and practice do not require this averment. Id., section 1040, and cases cited in note 3.
It is evidently not necessary in this state under the present law.
REHEARING DENIED.
THE other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Grady
...as near as practicable. And this can be best done by giving the name of the vendee, if known, or if unknown, so alleged: [State v. Pischel, 16 Neb. 608, 21 N.W. 468] * * * Similar language was used by another court: 'An offense charged should be described with certain sufficiency to inform ......
-
Fletcher v. State
...definition of the offense be omitted, the indictment will be bad. 1 Chit. C. L. 281, 288; 2 Arch. C. L. 47." In the case of State v. Pischel, 16 Neb. 608, 21 N.W. 468, the court says: "It is thought expedient to decide question suggested without a further hearing, or imposing the expense of......
-
Hornberger v. State
...such fact should be averred as an excuse, or the information will be defective. Such is the holding of this court. (State v. Pischel, 16 Neb. 608, 21 N.W. 468; Martin v. State, 30 Neb. 421, 46 N.W. 618.) It be observed that the information herein does not contain such averment, and for that......
- Hornberger v. State