Byler v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Byler v. State

1911 OK CR 534, 119 P. 1022, 6 Okla. Crim. 698, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 536

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 30, 1911

DocketNo. A-906.

StatusPublished

This text of 1911 OK CR 534 (Byler 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

Byler v. State, 1911 OK CR 534, 119 P. 1022, 6 Okla. Crim. 698, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 536 (Okla. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with the intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. May 28, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, the defendant was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. To reverse this judgment an appeal was taken. The state introduced but one witness, the agent of the Wells, Pargo Express Company, at Blackwell, who produced a copy of the waybill, and stated that the original waybill had been sent to the head office of the Wells, Fargo Express Company, in New York. Over the defendant’s objection, the copy was introduced as evidence, and the witness was permitted to testify to an explanation of the breviations thereon. The facts and issues in this ease and the assignments of error are the same as in the case of W. H. Adams v. State, infra, and present the same questions. Por the reasons given in the opinion in that case, the judgment is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with the intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. May 28, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, the defendant was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. To reverse this judgment an appeal was taken. The state introduced but one witness, the agent of the Wells, Pargo Express Company, at Blackwell, who produced a copy of the waybill, and stated that the original waybill had been sent to the head office of the Wells, Fargo Express Company, in New York. Over the defendant’s objection, the copy was introduced as evidence, and the witness was permitted to testify to an explanation of the breviations thereon. The facts and issues in this ease and the assignments of error are the same as in the case of W. H. Adams v. State, infra, and present the same questions. Por the reasons given in the opinion in that case, the judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK CR 534, 119 P. 1022, 6 Okla. Crim. 698, 1911 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byler-v-state-oklacrimapp-1911.