Pitt v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Pitt v. State

1912 OK CR 26, 119 P. 1021, 6 Okla. Crim. 702, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 262

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 3, 1912

DocketNo. A-913.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 26 (Pitt 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

Pitt v. State, 1912 OK CR 26, 119 P. 1021, 6 Okla. Crim. 702, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 262 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. May 28, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, the defendant was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. The state introduced but one witness, the agent of the St. Louis and San Franciseo Railroad at Peckham, who produced several freight delivery receipts signed by J. L. Pitt. This was all the evidence in the case. The question in this ease was the same as in the case of Adams v. State, infra, and present the same question. For the reasons given in the opinion in that case, the judgment is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. May 28, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, the defendant was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. The state introduced but one witness, the agent of the St. Louis and San Franciseo Railroad at Peckham, who produced several freight delivery receipts signed by J. L. Pitt. This was all the evidence in the case. The question in this ease was the same as in the case of Adams v. State, infra, and present the same question. For the reasons given in the opinion in that case, the judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 26, 119 P. 1021, 6 Okla. Crim. 702, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitt-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.