State v. Chilton

39 Mo. App. 51, 1890 Mo. App. LEXIS 31
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 21, 1890·Published

Opinion

Rombauer, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of tbe court. Tbe defendant was indicted, tried and convicted, for selling liquor without a license, and appeals. He complains of tbe insufficiency of tbe indictment, and of tbe rendition of tbe judgment against him upon insufficient proof. It is needless- to discuss tbe first point made, because we are clear that the second is well taken and necessarily results in a reversal of tbe judgment.

Upon tbe trial of tbe cause, the state gave no evidence whatever showing, or tending to show, in what [52] county the alleged offense was committed. This omission, under the uniform ruling in this state, is fatal to the verdict. State v. Milter, 71 Mo. 90; State v. Hughes, 82 Mo. 86; State v. McKay, 20 Mo. App. 149, and cases cited.

The judgment is reversed and the defendant discharged.

All the judges concur.

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

State v. Chilton, 39 Mo. App. 51, 1890 Mo. App. LEXIS 31 (Mo. Ct. App. 1890).

39 Mo. App. 51 (State v. Chilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. McKay
20 Mo. App. 149 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
State v. Hughes
82 Mo. 86 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1884)