Waits v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Waits v. State

1914 OK CR 71, 138 P. 1199, 10 Okla. Crim. 680, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 156

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 21, 1914

DocketNo. A-1942.

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK CR 71 (Waits v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Waits v. State, 1914 OK CR 71, 138 P. 1199, 10 Okla. Crim. 680, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 156 (Okla. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PEB CUBIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Hughes county upon an information charging the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor to one B. E. Stiles, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was, on the 20th day of January, sentenced to be confined for thirty days in the eounty jail, and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. An appeal was taken by filing in this court on March IS, 1913, petition in error with caso-made. No brief has been filed, and the Attorney General has filed a motion to affirm, for failure to prosecute the appeal. In cases of this kind, we do not consider it the duty of this court to examine the record, to determine whether or not the trial court erred in the admission and rejection of testimony. We have examined the record proper, and find no error. The motion to affirm is sustained. The judgment is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

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

PEB CUBIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Hughes county upon an information charging the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor to one B. E. Stiles, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was, on the 20th day of January, sentenced to be confined for thirty days in the eounty jail, and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. An appeal was taken by filing in this court on March IS, 1913, petition in error with caso-made. No brief has been filed, and the Attorney General has filed a motion to affirm, for failure to prosecute the appeal. In cases of this kind, we do not consider it the duty of this court to examine the record, to determine whether or not the trial court erred in the admission and rejection of testimony. We have examined the record proper, and find no error. The motion to affirm is sustained. The judgment is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK CR 71, 138 P. 1199, 10 Okla. Crim. 680, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waits-v-state-oklacrimapp-1914.