Cardin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Cardin v. State

1925 OK CR 51, 232 P. 1117, 29 Okla. Crim. 110, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 59

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 31, 1925

DocketNo. A-4753.

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK CR 51 (Cardin 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

Cardin v. State, 1925 OK CR 51, 232 P. 1117, 29 Okla. Crim. 110, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 59 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, W. P. Cardin, was convicted on a charge that he did have possession of five gallons of whisky, with the unlawful intention to barter, sell, give away, or otherwise furnish the same, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $200 and be confined in the county jail for a period of six months. From the judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court, on June 25, 1923, a petition in error with case-made. No brief has been filed, *111 and, when the case was called for final submission, no appearance was made on behalf of the plaintiff in error. Finding nothing in the record to indicate that the plaintiff in error did not have a fair trial, the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, W. P. Cardin, was convicted on a charge that he did have possession of five gallons of whisky, with the unlawful intention to barter, sell, give away, or otherwise furnish the same, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $200 and be confined in the county jail for a period of six months. From the judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court, on June 25, 1923, a petition in error with case-made. No brief has been filed, *111 and, when the case was called for final submission, no appearance was made on behalf of the plaintiff in error. Finding nothing in the record to indicate that the plaintiff in error did not have a fair trial, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 51, 232 P. 1117, 29 Okla. Crim. 110, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardin-v-state-oklacrimapp-1925.