Austin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Austin v. State

1913 OK CR 240, 132 P. 1192, 9 Okla. Crim. 741, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 203

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 30, 1913

DocketNo. A-1756.

StatusPublished

This text of 1913 OK CR 240 (Austin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Austin v. State, 1913 OK CR 240, 132 P. 1192, 9 Okla. Crim. 741, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 203 (Okla. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Everett Austin, was convicted under an information which charged the unlawful sale of a half pint of alcohol. It was the judgment and sentence of the court that he be confined in the county jail for ninety days and pay a fine of three hundred dollars. The judgment and sentence was entered April 9, 1912. To reverse the judgment this appeal is prosecuted, prom an examination of the record it appears that the complaining witness was the only witness who testified in the case. His testimony, that he purchased one half pint of alcohol from the plaintiff in error on the street, in Miami, Ottawa county, is uncontradicted.

Upon a'careful examination of the record our conclusion is that this appeal is without merit. It appears that the plaintiff in error had a fair trial. The judgment of the county court of Ottawa county is affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Everett Austin, was convicted under an information which charged the unlawful sale of a half pint of alcohol. It was the judgment and sentence of the court that he be confined in the county jail for ninety days and pay a fine of three hundred dollars. The judgment and sentence was entered April 9, 1912. To reverse the judgment this appeal is prosecuted, prom an examination of the record it appears that the complaining witness was the only witness who testified in the case. His testimony, that he purchased one half pint of alcohol from the plaintiff in error on the street, in Miami, Ottawa county, is uncontradicted.

Upon a'careful examination of the record our conclusion is that this appeal is without merit. It appears that the plaintiff in error had a fair trial. The judgment of the county court of Ottawa county is affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK CR 240, 132 P. 1192, 9 Okla. Crim. 741, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-state-oklacrimapp-1913.