Cool v. State
16 Ind. 355, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 180
Opinion
An indictment for retailing liquors should allege a given quantity, according to established measures, as a pint, a gill, &c., and a price for which it was sold. “ One drink” signifies no given quantity. Ind. Dig., p. 378; 4 Ind. 577.
The judgment is reversed, with instructions to quash.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cool v. State, 16 Ind. 355, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 180 (Ind. 1861).
16 Ind. 355 (Cool v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
City of Cannelton v. Collins
88 N.E. 66 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1909)
Buell v. State
72 Ind. 523 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1880)
State v. Zeitler
63 Ind. 441 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1878)
Manvelle v. State
58 Ind. 63 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1877)
State v. King
37 Iowa 462 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1873)
Haver v. State
17 Ind. 455 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1861)