Barclay v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Barclay v. State

1929 OK CR 456, 281 P. 986, 45 Okla. Crim. 85, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 469

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 26, 1929

DocketNo. A-7242.

StatusPublished

This text of 1929 OK CR 456 (Barclay 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

Barclay v. State, 1929 OK CR 456, 281 P. 986, 45 Okla. Crim. 85, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 469 (Okla. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

*86 PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Comanche county on a charge of having the. unlawful possession of whisky, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and to serve thirty days in the county jail.

The record discloses that, at the time charged, certain officers found a keg containing about three gallons of whisky on a farm in the possession of defendant, between a quarter and a half mile from his house. Some tracks were there, but there is no evidence that they corresponded with the tracks of defendant. They were not followed nearer than a quarter of a mile to defendant’s house. Other persons were pasturing live stock on this farm and had access to it. The evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment.

The case is reversed.

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

*86 PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Comanche county on a charge of having the. unlawful possession of whisky, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and to serve thirty days in the county jail.

The record discloses that, at the time charged, certain officers found a keg containing about three gallons of whisky on a farm in the possession of defendant, between a quarter and a half mile from his house. Some tracks were there, but there is no evidence that they corresponded with the tracks of defendant. They were not followed nearer than a quarter of a mile to defendant’s house. Other persons were pasturing live stock on this farm and had access to it. The evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment.

The case is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK CR 456, 281 P. 986, 45 Okla. Crim. 85, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barclay-v-state-oklacrimapp-1929.