Faucett and Gilliam v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Faucett and Gilliam v. State

1912 OK CR 67, 119 P. 1130, 6 Okla. Crim. 720, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 281

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 17, 1912

DocketNo. A-1166.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 67 (Faucett and Gilliam 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

Faucett and Gilliam v. State, 1912 OK CR 67, 119 P. 1130, 6 Okla. Crim. 720, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 281 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs in error were convicted in the county court of Tulsa county, at the January, 1911, term, of violating the prohibitory law, and Walter Faueett’s punishment fixed at a fine of three hundred dollars and thirty days’ imprisonment in the county' jail, and Bobert Gilliam’s punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and thirty days’ confinement in the county jail. Following the doctrine laid down by this court in the cases of Barr v. State, infra, 115 Pac. 1009; Harper v. State, infra, 115 Pac. 1009, and McDaniel v. State, infra, 115 Pac. 1010, we think the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to cause the county attorney to file a proper information, and try the ease anew. It is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs in error were convicted in the county court of Tulsa county, at the January, 1911, term, of violating the prohibitory law, and Walter Faueett’s punishment fixed at a fine of three hundred dollars and thirty days’ imprisonment in the county' jail, and Bobert Gilliam’s punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and thirty days’ confinement in the county jail. Following the doctrine laid down by this court in the cases of Barr v. State, infra, 115 Pac. 1009; Harper v. State, infra, 115 Pac. 1009, and McDaniel v. State, infra, 115 Pac. 1010, we think the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to cause the county attorney to file a proper information, and try the ease anew. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 67, 119 P. 1130, 6 Okla. Crim. 720, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faucett-and-gilliam-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.