Hitt v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hitt v. State

1912 OK CR 55, 119 P. 1130, 6 Okla. Crim. 714, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 280

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 16, 1912

DocketNo. A-1050.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 55 (Hitt 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

Hitt v. State, 1912 OK CR 55, 119 P. 1130, 6 Okla. Crim. 714, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 280 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted at the October, 1910, term of the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of whisky with intent to sell the same, and. on the 26th day. of November, thereafter, his punishment was fixed at a fine of one hundred and fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail sixty days. The testimony up>on which this conviction is based tends to show that the plaintiff in error had possession of a certain restaurant in Edmond about the time alleged in the information, but there is no proof that any sale was ever made, or any offer to make a sale, and no other circumstances of an incriminating nature sufficient to sustain this judgment. The transaction out of which the conviction grew shows that less than a bottle of whisky was found in the place at the, time the charge is laid. Let the judgment be reversed, and a new trial awarded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted at the October, 1910, term of the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of whisky with intent to sell the same, and. on the 26th day. of November, thereafter, his punishment was fixed at a fine of one hundred and fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail sixty days. The testimony up>on which this conviction is based tends to show that the plaintiff in error had possession of a certain restaurant in Edmond about the time alleged in the information, but there is no proof that any sale was ever made, or any offer to make a sale, and no other circumstances of an incriminating nature sufficient to sustain this judgment. The transaction out of which the conviction grew shows that less than a bottle of whisky was found in the place at the, time the charge is laid. Let the judgment be reversed, and a new trial awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 55, 119 P. 1130, 6 Okla. Crim. 714, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hitt-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.