Juby v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Juby v. State

1914 OK CR 65, 138 P. 1197, 10 Okla. Crim. 677, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 146

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 14, 1914

DocketNo. A-1914.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1914 OK CR 65 (Juby 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

Juby v. State, 1914 OK CR 65, 138 P. 1197, 10 Okla. Crim. 677, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 146 (Okla. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Tulsa county upon an indictment presented by a grand jury in the district court, which was duly transferred from the district court to said county court, wherein the defendant was charged with having unlawfully sold to one Charles Pino one glass of whisky, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was on the 30th day of November, 1912, sentenced to be confined in the county jail for thirty days, and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. Prom this judgment he appealed by filing in this court on Pebruary 18, 1913, a petition in error with ease-made. Upon arraignment the defendant filed his duly verified motion to set aside the indictment, which motion and agreed statement of facts are the same as in the case of Viers v. State, ante, 134 Pac. 80, which motion to set aside was overruled and exception allowed. This presents the identical question passed upon in the Viers case. Por the reasons given in the opinion in that ease, for error of the court in overruling the motion to set aside the indictment, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and a new trial awarded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Tulsa county upon an indictment presented by a grand jury in the district court, which was duly transferred from the district court to said county court, wherein the defendant was charged with having unlawfully sold to one Charles Pino one glass of whisky, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was on the 30th day of November, 1912, sentenced to be confined in the county jail for thirty days, and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. Prom this judgment he appealed by filing in this court on Pebruary 18, 1913, a petition in error with ease-made. Upon arraignment the defendant filed his duly verified motion to set aside the indictment, which motion and agreed statement of facts are the same as in the case of Viers v. State, ante, 134 Pac. 80, which motion to set aside was overruled and exception allowed. This presents the identical question passed upon in the Viers case. Por the reasons given in the opinion in that ease, for error of the court in overruling the motion to set aside the indictment, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and a new trial awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK CR 65, 138 P. 1197, 10 Okla. Crim. 677, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juby-v-state-oklacrimapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack