Fitzgerald v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Fitzgerald v. State

1921 OK CR 56, 196 P. 1102, 18 Okla. Crim. 724, 1921 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 230

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 29, 1921

DocketNo. A-3683.

StatusPublished

This text of 1921 OK CR 56 (Fitzgerald 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

Fitzgerald v. State, 1921 OK CR 56, 196 P. 1102, 18 Okla. Crim. 724, 1921 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 230 (Okla. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, George Fitzgerald, was convicted on a charge that he did have unlawfully in his _ possession certain intoxicating liquors with intent to violate the provisions of the prohibitory liquor laws. He was sentenced to be confined for 30 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $100, and in default of the payment of said fine that he is further confined in the county jail until the same is satisfied according to law.

No brief has been filed. .When the case was called for final submission no appearance was made on behalf of the plaintiff in error, and for this reason the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment.

From an examination of the record we have failed to find anything whereof the plaintiff in error has just right to complain. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, George Fitzgerald, was convicted on a charge that he did have unlawfully in his _ possession certain intoxicating liquors with intent to violate the provisions of the prohibitory liquor laws. He was sentenced to be confined for 30 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $100, and in default of the payment of said fine that he is further confined in the county jail until the same is satisfied according to law.

No brief has been filed. .When the case was called for final submission no appearance was made on behalf of the plaintiff in error, and for this reason the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment.

From an examination of the record we have failed to find anything whereof the plaintiff in error has just right to complain. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1921 OK CR 56, 196 P. 1102, 18 Okla. Crim. 724, 1921 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-state-oklacrimapp-1921.