State v. Buckhalt

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Buckhalt

111 So. 350, 162 La. 980, 1927 La. LEXIS 1570

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 3, 1927

DocketNo. 28342.

StatusPublished

This text of 111 So. 350 (State v. Buckhalt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Buckhalt, 111 So. 350, 162 La. 980, 1927 La. LEXIS 1570 (La. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

O’NIELL, C. J.

Appellant stands convicted of the offense of having intoxicating liquor in his possession for beverage purposes. The record contains two bills of exception, in which it is contended that the bill of information was invalid because the indorsement, on the back of it, of the number and title of the case, the offense charged and the date of filing, was not signed by the district attorney. There is neither a statutory nor common-law requirement that such an 'indorsement ón a bill of information shall be signed by the district attorney. The bill of information itself was signed by the district attorney in his official capacity, which is all that was necessary to verify the bill.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.

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

O’NIELL, C. J.

Appellant stands convicted of the offense of having intoxicating liquor in his possession for beverage purposes. The record contains two bills of exception, in which it is contended that the bill of information was invalid because the indorsement, on the back of it, of the number and title of the case, the offense charged and the date of filing, was not signed by the district attorney. There is neither a statutory nor common-law requirement that such an 'indorsement ón a bill of information shall be signed by the district attorney. The bill of information itself was signed by the district attorney in his official capacity, which is all that was necessary to verify the bill.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 So. 350, 162 La. 980, 1927 La. LEXIS 1570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-buckhalt-la-1927.