Hinchman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hinchman v. State

1912 OK CR 23, 119 P. 1022, 6 Okla. Crim. 700, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 263

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 2, 1912

DocketNo. A-908.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 23 (Hinchman 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

Hinchman v. State, 1912 OK CR 23, 119 P. 1022, 6 Okla. Crim. 700, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 263 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. On May 25, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. To reverse this judgment this appeal is taken. The state introduced but one witness) the station agent of the S'anta Fe railway at Kaw City, who produced two freight delivery receipts dated January 28th and February 5, 1910, eaeh for one cask of bottled liquor, and identified the signatures thereto as those of the defendant, which receipts, over the objection of the defendant, were admitted in evidence. He further testified that the records were not handled by him personally all the time in the office, and did not know of his own personal knowledge what the shipments contained; that the billing was all he had to go by. This was all the evidence introduced in the case. The defendant requested a peremptory instruction as follows: “The court instructs the jury to find the defendant, George Hinchman, not guilty of the offense charged.” The facts and issues in this case, and the assignments of error are the same as in the case of McCarthy v. State, infra, and present the same questions. For 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.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. On May 25, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. To reverse this judgment this appeal is taken. The state introduced but one witness) the station agent of the S'anta Fe railway at Kaw City, who produced two freight delivery receipts dated January 28th and February 5, 1910, eaeh for one cask of bottled liquor, and identified the signatures thereto as those of the defendant, which receipts, over the objection of the defendant, were admitted in evidence. He further testified that the records were not handled by him personally all the time in the office, and did not know of his own personal knowledge what the shipments contained; that the billing was all he had to go by. This was all the evidence introduced in the case. The defendant requested a peremptory instruction as follows: “The court instructs the jury to find the defendant, George Hinchman, not guilty of the offense charged.” The facts and issues in this case, and the assignments of error are the same as in the case of McCarthy v. State, infra, and present the same questions. For the reasons given in the opinion in that case, the judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 23, 119 P. 1022, 6 Okla. Crim. 700, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinchman-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.