Milton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Milton v. State

1910 OK CR 210, 111 P. 654, 4 Okla. Crim. 372, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 45

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 23, 1910

DocketNo. A-215.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1910 OK CR 210 (Milton 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

Milton v. State, 1910 OK CR 210, 111 P. 654, 4 Okla. Crim. 372, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 45 (Okla. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CERIAM.

The statute makes it an offense for any person to- sell, barter, give away, or otherwise dispose of any spirituous, vinous, fermented, or malt liquors, or any imitation thereof or substitute therefor. It also goes further, and makes it a separate and distinct offense for any person to have in his possession any such liquor with the intention of violating any of the provisions of the prohibitory liquor law. The information in this case charged the defendant with both of the above-named offenses. The defendant demurred to the information on the ground of duplicity. This demurrer was overruled by the court. In this there was error. Our statute in express terms declares that an information or indictment must charge but one offense. See Wells v. Terr., 10 Okla. Cr. 469, 98 Pac. 483; Sturgis v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 362, 102 Pac. 57.

Eor this error, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

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

PER CERIAM.

The statute makes it an offense for any person to- sell, barter, give away, or otherwise dispose of any spirituous, vinous, fermented, or malt liquors, or any imitation thereof or substitute therefor. It also goes further, and makes it a separate and distinct offense for any person to have in his possession any such liquor with the intention of violating any of the provisions of the prohibitory liquor law. The information in this case charged the defendant with both of the above-named offenses. The defendant demurred to the information on the ground of duplicity. This demurrer was overruled by the court. In this there was error. Our statute in express terms declares that an information or indictment must charge but one offense. See Wells v. Terr., 10 Okla. Cr. 469, 98 Pac. 483; Sturgis v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 362, 102 Pac. 57.

Eor this error, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1910 OK CR 210, 111 P. 654, 4 Okla. Crim. 372, 1910 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milton-v-state-oklacrimapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack