Dodson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Dodson v. State

1912 OK CR 95, 120 P. 1125, 6 Okla. Crim. 734, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 323

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 27, 1912

DocketNo. A-1187.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 95 (Dodson 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

Dodson v. State, 1912 OK CR 95, 120 P. 1125, 6 Okla. Crim. 734, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 323 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Bogers county at the March, 1911, term, on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of forty-five days. The proof shows that the prosecuting witness told the accused to get.some beer, and charge it to his account; that he did not know whether accused charged him with the cost of the beer or not; and did not testify that accused agreed to charge it to his account. The proof on behalf of accused shows that he did not agree to charge prosecuting witness with the amount, and did not so charge him; that he bought the beer from another party and paid for it himself. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and a new trial awarded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Bogers county at the March, 1911, term, on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of forty-five days. The proof shows that the prosecuting witness told the accused to get.some beer, and charge it to his account; that he did not know whether accused charged him with the cost of the beer or not; and did not testify that accused agreed to charge it to his account. The proof on behalf of accused shows that he did not agree to charge prosecuting witness with the amount, and did not so charge him; that he bought the beer from another party and paid for it himself. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and a new trial awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 95, 120 P. 1125, 6 Okla. Crim. 734, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodson-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.