Elliot v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Elliot v. State

1913 OK CR 362, 136 P. 1198, 10 Okla. Crim. 660, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 373

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 15, 1913

DocketNo. A-1851.

StatusPublished

This text of 1913 OK CR 362 (Elliot 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

Elliot v. State, 1913 OK CR 362, 136 P. 1198, 10 Okla. Crim. 660, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 373 (Okla. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction had in the county court of Stephens county on the 13th day of August, 1912, in which appellant was found guilty of the unlawful conveyance of intoxicating liquors, and his punishment assessed at a fine of one hundred dollars, and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of one hundred twenty days. The evidence shows that appellant was arrested driving through Stevens county in a buggy in which he had a suit case with twenty-four pints of whisky in it. The defendant offered no testimony. After a careful examination of the various questions raised, we are satisfied that under well settled rules, sustained and upheld by the decisions of this court, no error was committed. The judgment is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction had in the county court of Stephens county on the 13th day of August, 1912, in which appellant was found guilty of the unlawful conveyance of intoxicating liquors, and his punishment assessed at a fine of one hundred dollars, and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of one hundred twenty days. The evidence shows that appellant was arrested driving through Stevens county in a buggy in which he had a suit case with twenty-four pints of whisky in it. The defendant offered no testimony. After a careful examination of the various questions raised, we are satisfied that under well settled rules, sustained and upheld by the decisions of this court, no error was committed. The judgment is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK CR 362, 136 P. 1198, 10 Okla. Crim. 660, 1913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliot-v-state-oklacrimapp-1913.