State v. Clinkenbeard

115 S.W. 1059, 135 Mo. App. 189, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 588

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 1, 1909
• Status: Published

Opinion

ELLISON, J.

The defendant was indicated, tried and convicted on a charge of selling intoxicating-ifer qnorgjiiai less; quantities thhhjfbWggial’lons, without!having í&ilicens.e.í-rA ,Ok& <;0£ jííímUíUB

i o tDhe.-.indietmen#) ¡all¡egesí:ith.at;.t defendant visoldo/táetb tain/;int,ox:icatiBg;di.quorsLhn;,!lgsS‘,uqnan!tit>ies).;thanyfQji6 gailonssfi to-wito r,.da© Kpmeá&f-iwiéslijq jianeapitcjf, 'dííots andíO‘n.eiEtin1ñof íbna-Kdysr .etc* y-Thei Mal 'faáledntd' show any isaleidf jbrahdy :,,or. ¡wine^í but ¡ didi. ¡slioy? ¡ <a>, sales f@í<> ¡a] half*. pint r¡©¡f .whisky.;» • The .pointuagainst the judgment; of conviction is that thfi)áfnidié:ttíieBítido.éSí0ifi)tí.chaEgelthet sgietoofcanys qbatotthyimf;. whisky ;y that íisjKjtfeatj.-isn© ipine dfjtw^isl&yois m&t? an/.íaiIegatioñt*of;.'quantity<; oThhuanti th.orities * on) tbeaqnestionyagKéé, ¡ thatia?: ¡SpeeiflC'/quainti tyj. mustebe i alleged; suehvaAlegaition ?is material p.jthongM thegproof meedr not! S'hhw'isnph'iéx-ac. [State v. Cox, 29 Mo. 475; State v. Sills, 556 Mo. App. 408; State v. Gibbs, 129 Mo. App. 700.] After allegiBgpjig the languageyofuthe ipta,tut%. lhat a saieu^ass aele of a less quantity than the minimum allowed to be sold, it must, in addition, be- alleged- iahat quantity the less quantity was. In connection with the authorities just cited, the following should be read. [State v. Fanning, 38 Mo. 409; State v. Ryan, 30 Mo. App. 161; State v. Greenhagen, 36 Mo. App. 24; Statel v. Baskett, 52 Mo. App. 393; State v. Stephens 62 Mo. App. 232.]

«on. ■•GonhseTfor' thé^State dnsi'Sts’tba? the* 'word--“pine” üle,d'iih’ÍM‘dlídifé'íméh{,,^áhdlñdr!Beh'r%W^1Í'7asñ^'Jíiiere faun.»'**' w »':s® xi-n-j o' ‘«kk? ,* u Pf.'.u a bus josijt clerical error, apflvjlhAhÁt.MaioGlqait;; f#ras meant. But it. is against a rule in criminal pleadin ,»jO ‘'í'íSp.Pí* to make out misil- -.aiiíiQ ifo-vij;} auu.,b>i5b liioaj LcaguA. _. _ _ .at any material allegation Jby intendment. [State v. Fairlamb, 121 Mo. 137, 154.] In that case the words in the indictment were ‘Telolious],yáf’4f$n,i],f> fully,” “neapon,” and “nound,” and they were used MHSbc? thé1 wb’M’s^MkóMidu^ly}”t'r“wílf!tfHyp ^Sv^ipon” and “wound” should have beenM’Tkwá'á could not be taken to stand for and mean tbe latter words.

In State v. Campbell, 210 Mo. 202, and State v. Skillman, 209 Mo. 408, tbe concluding words in tbe indictment were “against tbe peace and dignity of State,” instead of “against tbe peace and dignity of the State,” as required by tbe constitution and statute. Tbe only difference was in tbe word “tbe,” and tbe State sought to bave tbe court supply it by intendment; but tbe court, after much consideration, refused to do so and held tbe indictment bad.

In tbe case at bar it was essential, as already stated, to allege a specific quantity. Tbe word “pine” is not a word wbicb signifies any measure of quantity. It serves no purpose and leaves tbe case without an allegation of tbe specific quantity less than four gallons. We think tbe cases cited by tbe • State not applicable.

Tbe judgment is reversed.

All concur.