Harmon v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Harmon v. State

1910 OK CR 132, 109 P. 1115, 4 Okla. Crim. 16, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 35

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 26, 1910

DocketNo. A-433.

StatusPublished

This text of 1910 OK CR 132 (Harmon 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

Harmon v. State, 1910 OK CR 132, 109 P. 1115, 4 Okla. Crim. 16, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 35 (Okla. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

*17 PEE CHEIAM.

The plaintiff in' error was convicted in the. county court of Tulsa-county for the crime of unlawfully selling intoxicating 'liquor,-and was on the l'6th day of September, 1909, sentenced to be confined in the county 'jail for a period of 120 days and to pay a fine of $200 and costs, from which judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court on November 15, 1909, a petition in error, with case-made attached. No, briefs have been filed. Counsel for the state on March 19, 1910, filed a motion to dismiss or affirm said cause for want of prosecution, to which motion no response has been made. We have examined the record, and we have discovered no error which will warrant a reversal of the judgment. The motion to affirm is therefore sustained, and the judgment of the county court of Tulsa 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

*17 PEE CHEIAM.

The plaintiff in' error was convicted in the. county court of Tulsa-county for the crime of unlawfully selling intoxicating 'liquor,-and was on the l'6th day of September, 1909, sentenced to be confined in the county 'jail for a period of 120 days and to pay a fine of $200 and costs, from which judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court on November 15, 1909, a petition in error, with case-made attached. No, briefs have been filed. Counsel for the state on March 19, 1910, filed a motion to dismiss or affirm said cause for want of prosecution, to which motion no response has been made. We have examined the record, and we have discovered no error which will warrant a reversal of the judgment. The motion to affirm is therefore sustained, and the judgment of the county court of Tulsa 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 132, 109 P. 1115, 4 Okla. Crim. 16, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harmon-v-state-oklacrimapp-1910.