Hubbard v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hubbard v. State

1919 OK CR 181, 180 P. 192, 16 Okla. Crim. 673, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 133

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 31, 1919

DocketNo. A-2696.

StatusPublished

This text of 1919 OK CR 181 (Hubbard 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

Hubbard v. State, 1919 OK CR 181, 180 P. 192, 16 Okla. Crim. 673, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 133 (Okla. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error E. J. Hubbard, and one R. A. Adkisson, were jointly charged with conveying 14 quarts of beer from a point in the town of Lawton, Comanche county, unknown, to 514 Fourth street, city of Lawton. Upon his separate trial plaintiff in error was convicted, and his punishment assessed at 30 days’ confinement in the comity jail and a fine of1 $100. Prom the judgment rendered on the verdict, he appeals.

The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and ■ that the court erred in one of the instruction? given. An examination of the record discloses that the evidence abundantly supports the verdict and no material error appears that would in any way tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error E. J. Hubbard, and one R. A. Adkisson, were jointly charged with conveying 14 quarts of beer from a point in the town of Lawton, Comanche county, unknown, to 514 Fourth street, city of Lawton. Upon his separate trial plaintiff in error was convicted, and his punishment assessed at 30 days’ confinement in the comity jail and a fine of1 $100. Prom the judgment rendered on the verdict, he appeals.

The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and ■ that the court erred in one of the instruction? given. An examination of the record discloses that the evidence abundantly supports the verdict and no material error appears that would in any way tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1919 OK CR 181, 180 P. 192, 16 Okla. Crim. 673, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubbard-v-state-oklacrimapp-1919.