Herman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Herman v. State

1912 OK CR 24, 120 P. 1132, 6 Okla. Crim. 701, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 346

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 3, 1912

DocketNo. A-909.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 24 (Herman 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

Herman v. State, 1912 OK CR 24, 120 P. 1132, 6 Okla. Crim. 701, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 346 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have m his possession intoxicating' liquor with intent to violate the provisions of the prohibition law. May 28, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, defendant was sentenced to serve a term of sixty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars. To reverse the judgment this appeal was taken. The state introduced but one witness, the agent of the Santa Ee system at Kaw City, who produced a freight delivery receipt signed by the defendant. On cross-examination he testified that as agent he should have a bill of lading on file, but he did not know what had become of the bill of lading, for the shipment receipted for, and that all he knew about the shipment was by the form it was billed. This was all the testimony in the case. Defendant requested a peremptory instruction to acquit. The facts and issues in this case are the same as in the case of G. W. Cook v. State, infra. Eor the reasons given in the opinion in that case the judgment is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have m his possession intoxicating' liquor with intent to violate the provisions of the prohibition law. May 28, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, defendant was sentenced to serve a term of sixty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars. To reverse the judgment this appeal was taken. The state introduced but one witness, the agent of the Santa Ee system at Kaw City, who produced a freight delivery receipt signed by the defendant. On cross-examination he testified that as agent he should have a bill of lading on file, but he did not know what had become of the bill of lading, for the shipment receipted for, and that all he knew about the shipment was by the form it was billed. This was all the testimony in the case. Defendant requested a peremptory instruction to acquit. The facts and issues in this case are the same as in the case of G. W. Cook v. State, infra. Eor the reasons given in the opinion in that case the judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 24, 120 P. 1132, 6 Okla. Crim. 701, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herman-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.