Rochford v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Rochford v. State

1912 OK CR 25, 120 P. 1040, 6 Okla. Crim. 701, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 320

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 2, 1912

DocketNos. A-910, A-911.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 25 (Rochford 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

Rochford v. State, 1912 OK CR 25, 120 P. 1040, 6 Okla. Crim. 701, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 320 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on two indictments returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county. Each indictment charges that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with the intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. On May 28, 1910, judgment and sentence was entered in each ease. In each case the state introduced but one witness, the agent of the Santa Ee system at Kaw City, who produced the freight delivery receipt, and identified the signature thereto as that of the defendant. Over the defendant’s objection the receipt was introduced in evidence. The witness testified that he had no personal knowledge of the shipment. The facts and issues in these cases, and the assignments of error are the same as in the case of G. W. Cook v. State, infra, and present the same questions. Eor the reasons given in the opinion in that ease, the judgments are reversed.,

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on two indictments returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county. Each indictment charges that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with the intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. On May 28, 1910, judgment and sentence was entered in each ease. In each case the state introduced but one witness, the agent of the Santa Ee system at Kaw City, who produced the freight delivery receipt, and identified the signature thereto as that of the defendant. Over the defendant’s objection the receipt was introduced in evidence. The witness testified that he had no personal knowledge of the shipment. The facts and issues in these cases, and the assignments of error are the same as in the case of G. W. Cook v. State, infra, and present the same questions. Eor the reasons given in the opinion in that ease, the judgments are reversed.,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 25, 120 P. 1040, 6 Okla. Crim. 701, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rochford-v-state-oklacrimapp-1912.