State v. Goff

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Goff

65 Mo. App. 498, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 241

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 Mo. App. 498 (State v. Goff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Goff, 65 Mo. App. 498, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 241 (Mo. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Bond, J.

The defendant was convicted of selling liquor in violation of section 3890, Revised Statutes of 1889, under an information in two counts against himself and William Gt-ofE, the latter having been acquitted. 'On the trial the admission was made by the defendants, that “they did sell liquor as charged in both counts, and that they did sell without taking the oath or giving bond, but that they sold as druggists.”

On the appeal of defendant Edward Goff from the conviction obtained against him, it is insisted that the section under which the information was framed had [499]*499no application to him on account of the fact that he was the joint proprietor of a drug store. There is no' merit in this contention. It has been expressly decided by the supreme court that the section in question applies as a condition precedent to the right to sell liquor by anyone, whether druggist, physician, merchant, or dramshop keeper. State v. Ferguson, 72 Mo. 297. The state was, therefore, entitled, upon the admission made by defendant, to a direction to the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty; wherefore the judgment in this case will be affirmed.

All concur.

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

Bond, J.

The defendant was convicted of selling liquor in violation of section 3890, Revised Statutes of 1889, under an information in two counts against himself and William Gt-ofE, the latter having been acquitted. 'On the trial the admission was made by the defendants, that “they did sell liquor as charged in both counts, and that they did sell without taking the oath or giving bond, but that they sold as druggists.”

On the appeal of defendant Edward Goff from the conviction obtained against him, it is insisted that the section under which the information was framed had [499]*499no application to him on account of the fact that he was the joint proprietor of a drug store. There is no' merit in this contention. It has been expressly decided by the supreme court that the section in question applies as a condition precedent to the right to sell liquor by anyone, whether druggist, physician, merchant, or dramshop keeper. State v. Ferguson, 72 Mo. 297. The state was, therefore, entitled, upon the admission made by defendant, to a direction to the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty; wherefore the judgment in this case will be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Mo. App. 498, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-goff-moctapp-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack