Hucks v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hucks v. State

1920 OK CR 18, 186 P. 489, 17 Okla. Crim. 701, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 19

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 26, 1920

DocketNo. A-3394.

StatusPublished

This text of 1920 OK CR 18 (Hucks 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

Hucks v. State, 1920 OK CR 18, 186 P. 489, 17 Okla. Crim. 701, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 19 (Okla. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Bill Hucks, was by indictment duly returned in the district court of Garvin county charged with selling intoxicating liquor to one R. W. Eennings, which indictment was duly transferred to the county court, where upon his trial plaintiff in error was found gu'ilty and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and 30 days’ confinement in the county jail. From the judgment rendered on the verdict an appeal was perfected by filing in this court on June 13, 1918, a petition in error with case-made. No brief has been filed. When the case was called for final submission, the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal. For the reason stated, the motion is sustained, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Bill Hucks, was by indictment duly returned in the district court of Garvin county charged with selling intoxicating liquor to one R. W. Eennings, which indictment was duly transferred to the county court, where upon his trial plaintiff in error was found gu'ilty and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and 30 days’ confinement in the county jail. From the judgment rendered on the verdict an appeal was perfected by filing in this court on June 13, 1918, a petition in error with case-made. No brief has been filed. When the case was called for final submission, the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal. For the reason stated, the motion is sustained, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1920 OK CR 18, 186 P. 489, 17 Okla. Crim. 701, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hucks-v-state-oklacrimapp-1920.