State v. Nuernberger

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Nuernberger

158 S.W. 68, 175 Mo. App. 600, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 233

DecidedJune 24, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.W. 68 (State v. Nuernberger) 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. Nuernberger, 158 S.W. 68, 175 Mo. App. 600, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 233 (Mo. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, J.

The defendant, a dramshop keeper, was convicted of unlawfully suffering intoxicating liquors to he sold on Sunday on his dramshop'premises. His punishment was assessed at a fine of $125, and he appeals.

There are no assignments of error before us, and no briefs have been filed by either party to the record. However, it is our duty under the law to examine the record and render judgment thereupon. We have made a very careful examination of the record before us and find no reversible error therein. The case was well tried below, no errors appearing in rulings of the court upon the admission or exclusion of evidence, nor in respect to the instructions. There is abundant evidence to sustain the conviction, and the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Reynolds, P. J., and Norioni, J., concur.

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

ALLEN, J.

The defendant, a dramshop keeper, was convicted of unlawfully suffering intoxicating liquors to he sold on Sunday on his dramshop'premises. His punishment was assessed at a fine of $125, and he appeals.

There are no assignments of error before us, and no briefs have been filed by either party to the record. However, it is our duty under the law to examine the record and render judgment thereupon. We have made a very careful examination of the record before us and find no reversible error therein. The case was well tried below, no errors appearing in rulings of the court upon the admission or exclusion of evidence, nor in respect to the instructions. There is abundant evidence to sustain the conviction, and the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Reynolds, P. J., and Norioni, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.W. 68, 175 Mo. App. 600, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nuernberger-moctapp-1913.