Sales v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Sales v. State

1926 OK CR 204, 246 P. 488, 34 Okla. Crim. 252, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 187

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 15, 1926

DocketNo. A-5502.

StatusPublished

This text of 1926 OK CR 204 (Sales 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

Sales v. State, 1926 OK CR 204, 246 P. 488, 34 Okla. Crim. 252, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 187 (Okla. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM,.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of a violation of chapter 113, Session Laws of 1923, being charged with having transported certain persons in an automobile for hire from Ardmore to Wilson without having first obtained from the Corporation Commission a;, certificate declaring that public convenience and necessity required such operation and service. The penalty assessed was a fine of $100.

In the petition in error the plaintiff in error challenges the constitutionality of the act as a whole, and particularly that of several separate sections and provisioná of the act. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. No briefs have been filed, and the cause has been regularly submitted on the record.

Without passing upon the constitutionality of the act as a whole or any of its features, we find that the information fails to state an offense under' the terms of the act. Assuming that under the facts none can be stated, the cause is reversed, with instructions to enter a dismissal.

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

PER CURIAM,.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of a violation of chapter 113, Session Laws of 1923, being charged with having transported certain persons in an automobile for hire from Ardmore to Wilson without having first obtained from the Corporation Commission a;, certificate declaring that public convenience and necessity required such operation and service. The penalty assessed was a fine of $100.

In the petition in error the plaintiff in error challenges the constitutionality of the act as a whole, and particularly that of several separate sections and provisioná of the act. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. No briefs have been filed, and the cause has been regularly submitted on the record.

Without passing upon the constitutionality of the act as a whole or any of its features, we find that the information fails to state an offense under' the terms of the act. Assuming that under the facts none can be stated, the cause is reversed, with instructions to enter a dismissal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1926 OK CR 204, 246 P. 488, 34 Okla. Crim. 252, 1926 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sales-v-state-oklacrimapp-1926.