Northrup v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Northrup v. State

1920 OK CR 103, 189 P. 1102, 17 Okla. Crim. 719, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 104

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 11, 1920

DocketNo. A-3507.

StatusPublished

This text of 1920 OK CR 103 (Northrup 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

Northrup v. State, 1920 OK CR 103, 189 P. 1102, 17 Okla. Crim. 719, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 104 (Okla. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Harry Northrup, was convicted on an information charging the unlawful conveyance of 5 half pints of whisky from a point unknown to the northwest corner of First and Main streets, Tulsa, December 7, 1918. The court rendered judgment, and sentenced him to be confined in the county jail for 60 -days and to pay a fine of $50. The' evidence shows that plaintiff in error was arrested by a police officer, taken to the station, searched, and 5 half pint bottles of whisky found in his pockets. As a witness in Iris own behalf the defendant testified that he had just bought the w'hisky and was taking it to his wife. No brief has been filed. We have examined the record, and find no fundamental error. The judgment is affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Harry Northrup, was convicted on an information charging the unlawful conveyance of 5 half pints of whisky from a point unknown to the northwest corner of First and Main streets, Tulsa, December 7, 1918. The court rendered judgment, and sentenced him to be confined in the county jail for 60 -days and to pay a fine of $50. The' evidence shows that plaintiff in error was arrested by a police officer, taken to the station, searched, and 5 half pint bottles of whisky found in his pockets. As a witness in Iris own behalf the defendant testified that he had just bought the w'hisky and was taking it to his wife. No brief has been filed. We have examined the record, and find no fundamental error. The judgment is affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1920 OK CR 103, 189 P. 1102, 17 Okla. Crim. 719, 1920 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northrup-v-state-oklacrimapp-1920.