Kendrick v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Kendrick v. State

1915 OK CR 16, 146 P. 727, 11 Okla. Crim. 380, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 17

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 10, 1915

DocketNo. A-2217.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1915 OK CR 16 (Kendrick 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

Kendrick v. State, 1915 OK CR 16, 146 P. 727, 11 Okla. Crim. 380, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 17 (Okla. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

ARMSTRONG, J.

The plaintiff in error, Jack Kendrick, was convicted at the January, 1914, term of the county court of Jefferson comity on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and .his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days and a fine of $50.

The material facts, as testified to by the prosecuting witness, and admitted by the plaintiff in error, are substantially as follows: Claud Jay testified that he was in Waurika about the 6th day of December, 1913; that he met the plaintiff in error, Jack Kendrick, and asked him if he knew where he could get some whisky. He said that he did. He (Jay) then gave the plaintiff in error $5 in currency and told him to get a pint. Thej'' agreed upon a place to meet within a short time. Witness went to this place and there met the plaintiff in error, who delivered to him the pint of whisky and returned him all the money except $1.35. The whisky cost a dollar, but the plaintiff in error did not have correct change to pay the thirty-five cents.

*381 Updn the authority of Buchanan v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 645, 112 Pac. 32, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83, and Cantrell v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 304, 135 Pac. 1158, the judgment is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., concurs. FURMAN, J., absent.

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

ARMSTRONG, J.

The plaintiff in error, Jack Kendrick, was convicted at the January, 1914, term of the county court of Jefferson comity on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and .his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days and a fine of $50.

The material facts, as testified to by the prosecuting witness, and admitted by the plaintiff in error, are substantially as follows: Claud Jay testified that he was in Waurika about the 6th day of December, 1913; that he met the plaintiff in error, Jack Kendrick, and asked him if he knew where he could get some whisky. He said that he did. He (Jay) then gave the plaintiff in error $5 in currency and told him to get a pint. Thej'' agreed upon a place to meet within a short time. Witness went to this place and there met the plaintiff in error, who delivered to him the pint of whisky and returned him all the money except $1.35. The whisky cost a dollar, but the plaintiff in error did not have correct change to pay the thirty-five cents.

*381 Updn the authority of Buchanan v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 645, 112 Pac. 32, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83, and Cantrell v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 304, 135 Pac. 1158, the judgment is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., concurs. FURMAN, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK CR 16, 146 P. 727, 11 Okla. Crim. 380, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendrick-v-state-oklacrimapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack