State v. Heldt

41 Tex. 220
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1874·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Moore, Associate Justice.

The exceptions to the indictment are not well taken. The offense for which appellee is indicted is charged substantially in the words of the statute. It was unnecessary to designate the house or the place where the liquor was sold with more exactness and particularity than is done in the indictment. ÍTor was it absolutely essential to give the name of the person to whom the liquor was sold. If, as alleged in the motion to quash, there was no such place as Douglassville College at the date of the alleged violation of the law under which the indictment was found, by reason of said college having become a public school, as stated in the motion, the court could not judicially know the fact, and it was therefore no ground for quashing the indictment. If such is the fact, and by reason thereof it ceased to be an offense to sell spir[222] ituous liquors within the limits prescribed in the statute under which this indictment was found, appellee could have availed himself of it by plea of not guilty, but not by motion to quash..

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

State v. Heldt, 41 Tex. 220 (Tex. 1874).

41 Tex. 220 (State v. Heldt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Larson
34 P.2d 455 (Washington Supreme Court, 1934)
State v. Koerner
175 P. 175 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
Fletcher v. State
1909 OK CR 59 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1909)
City of Lincoln Center v. Linker
47 P. 174 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1896)
State v. Bodeckar
39 P. 645 (Washington Supreme Court, 1895)
State v. Schweiter
27 Kan. 499 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1882)