State v. Graves

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Graves

115 S.W. 1054, 135 Mo. App. 171, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 584

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 1, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 S.W. 1054 (State v. Graves) 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. Graves, 115 S.W. 1054, 135 Mo. App. 171, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 584 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

Defendant (appellant here) was • indicted, tried and convicted in the circuit court of Hickory county on a charge of violating the dramshop law. [Art. 1, ch. 22, Rev. Stat. 1899.] The alleged offense was committed March 16, 1907.

[172]*172In compliance with the rule of evidence announced in State v. Searcy, 89 Mo. App. 393, and 111 Mo. 236, defendant introduced proof of the Adoption in Hickory county of what is known as the Local Option Law in August, 1906, which was long prior to the date of the offense charged in the indictment. The legal effect of the adoption of the Local Option Law was to suspend the operation of the Dramshop Law in Hickory county, and with competent proof before it of the adoption of the law before the date of the offense charged, the court should have discharged defendant. [Ex parte Swann, 96 Mo. 44; State v. Beam, 51 Mo. App. 368; Ex parte Handler, 176 Mo. 383.]

The judgment is reversed.

All concur.

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

JOHNSON, J.

Defendant (appellant here) was • indicted, tried and convicted in the circuit court of Hickory county on a charge of violating the dramshop law. [Art. 1, ch. 22, Rev. Stat. 1899.] The alleged offense was committed March 16, 1907.

[172]*172In compliance with the rule of evidence announced in State v. Searcy, 89 Mo. App. 393, and 111 Mo. 236, defendant introduced proof of the Adoption in Hickory county of what is known as the Local Option Law in August, 1906, which was long prior to the date of the offense charged in the indictment. The legal effect of the adoption of the Local Option Law was to suspend the operation of the Dramshop Law in Hickory county, and with competent proof before it of the adoption of the law before the date of the offense charged, the court should have discharged defendant. [Ex parte Swann, 96 Mo. 44; State v. Beam, 51 Mo. App. 368; Ex parte Handler, 176 Mo. 383.]

The judgment is reversed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 S.W. 1054, 135 Mo. App. 171, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-graves-moctapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack