Hale v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hale v. State

1910 OK CR 133, 109 P. 1115, 4 Okla. Crim. 17, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 34

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 26, 1910

DocketNo. A-290.

StatusPublished

This text of 1910 OK CR 133 (Hale 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

Hale v. State, 1910 OK CR 133, 109 P. 1115, 4 Okla. Crim. 17, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 34 (Okla. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CHEIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Le Flore county for the crime of unlawfully furnishing intoxicating liquor, and was on the 24th day of June, 1909, sentenced to be confined in the county jail for 30 days and to pay a fine of $50 and costs,'from which judgment -an appeal was taken by filing in this court a petition in error, with .transcript attached, on August 13, 1909. No briefs have been -filed. Counsel for the state on March 26, 1910, filed a motion to dismiss or affirm for want'of prosecution, to which motion no ré- *18 sponse has been made. The motion to affirm is therefore sustained, and the judgment of the county court of Le Flore county is in all things affirmed, and the cause remanded, with direction to enforce the judgment and sentence.

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

PEE CHEIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Le Flore county for the crime of unlawfully furnishing intoxicating liquor, and was on the 24th day of June, 1909, sentenced to be confined in the county jail for 30 days and to pay a fine of $50 and costs,'from which judgment -an appeal was taken by filing in this court a petition in error, with .transcript attached, on August 13, 1909. No briefs have been -filed. Counsel for the state on March 26, 1910, filed a motion to dismiss or affirm for want'of prosecution, to which motion no ré- *18 sponse has been made. The motion to affirm is therefore sustained, and the judgment of the county court of Le Flore county is in all things affirmed, and the cause remanded, with direction to enforce the judgment and sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1910 OK CR 133, 109 P. 1115, 4 Okla. Crim. 17, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-v-state-oklacrimapp-1910.