Krusoczky v. State

140 N.E. 614, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 844, 108 Ohio St. 430, 1923 Ohio LEXIS 211
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 26, 1923·No. No. 17896·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

DAY, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Defendant was convicted in the Municipal Court of Dayton of the illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and defendant brings error to this court, contending that the affidavit was defective because, to the charge that defendant unlawfully possessed intoxicating liquor, it failed to add “for beverage purposes or as a beverage.” Held:

1. The affidavit was sufficient to charge an offense under 6212-15, 6212-16, 6212-17 GC. (Crabbe Act). To charge unlawful possession is all that is required to state an offense under that act. Elson c. State, 32 OCA- 481- The legislature did not intend to create a middle ground whereby intoxicating liquor notl lawfully possessed in accordance with the terms ofj the statute might be lawfully possessed for non' beverage purposes-

2. 6212-15 and 6212-16 GC. are not in eontraven-| tion of the 18th amendment of the U. S- Constitutio: or of Section 9 of Article 15 of the Constitution o: Ohio.

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

Krusoczky v. State, 140 N.E. 614, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 844, 108 Ohio St. 430, 1923 Ohio LEXIS 211 (Ohio 1923).

140 N.E. 614 (Krusoczky v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Conley
288 N.E.2d 296 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1971)
State v. Rowe
238 A.2d 217 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1968)
State v. Chester
42 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1942)
Commonwealth v. Stofchek
185 A. 840 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Lancione v. State
18 Ohio App. 380 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1923)