Darrah v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Darrah v. State

1917 OK CR 64, 163 P. 720, 13 Okla. Crim. 246, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 62

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 27, 1917

DocketNo. A-2724.

StatusPublished

This text of 1917 OK CR 64 (Darrah 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

Darrah v. State, 1917 OK CR 64, 163 P. 720, 13 Okla. Crim. 246, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 62 (Okla. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Ganadian county upon an indict-, ment presented by the grand jury in the district court, which was duly transferred from the district cou'rt to said county court, charging the plaintiff in error with having unlawfully sold whisky to one D. T. Jones, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to be confined in the county jail for four months and to pay a fine of .$300. From the judgment he ap- ■ pealed by filing in this court on April 29, 1916, a petition in error with case-made.

*247 On the call of the case for final submission, the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment for the reason that no brief has been filed and no appearance made for the plaintiff in error in this court.

We have examined the record, and find that the indictment is sufficient, that the instructions of the court fairly and fully present the law of the case, and that the verdict was well supported by the evidence. Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

ARMSTRONG and BRETT, JJ., concur.

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

DOYLE, P. J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Ganadian county upon an indict-, ment presented by the grand jury in the district court, which was duly transferred from the district cou'rt to said county court, charging the plaintiff in error with having unlawfully sold whisky to one D. T. Jones, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to be confined in the county jail for four months and to pay a fine of .$300. From the judgment he ap- ■ pealed by filing in this court on April 29, 1916, a petition in error with case-made.

*247 On the call of the case for final submission, the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment for the reason that no brief has been filed and no appearance made for the plaintiff in error in this court.

We have examined the record, and find that the indictment is sufficient, that the instructions of the court fairly and fully present the law of the case, and that the verdict was well supported by the evidence. Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

ARMSTRONG and BRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK CR 64, 163 P. 720, 13 Okla. Crim. 246, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darrah-v-state-oklacrimapp-1917.