Weber v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Weber v. State

1914 OK CR 57, 137 P. 1198, 10 Okla. Crim. 672, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 135

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 17, 1914

DocketNo. A-1891.

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK CR 57 (Weber 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

Weber v. State, 1914 OK CR 57, 137 P. 1198, 10 Okla. Crim. 672, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 135 (Okla. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PEB CUBIAM.

This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction had on an information which charged that the defendant did have in his possession intoxicating liquors with the unlawful intent to sell the same. In accordance with the verdict of the jury on the 25th day of November, 1912, the court sentenced the defendant to be confined in the county jail for ninety days and to pay a fine of three hundred dollars. The evidence shows that beer was found in the defendant’s place of business; that the defendant paid the federal license tax required of retail liquor dealers, and that he had sold intoxicating liquors at his place of business. A careful examination of the record leads to the conclusion that no error has been committed, to the defendant’s prejudice. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

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

PEB CUBIAM.

This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction had on an information which charged that the defendant did have in his possession intoxicating liquors with the unlawful intent to sell the same. In accordance with the verdict of the jury on the 25th day of November, 1912, the court sentenced the defendant to be confined in the county jail for ninety days and to pay a fine of three hundred dollars. The evidence shows that beer was found in the defendant’s place of business; that the defendant paid the federal license tax required of retail liquor dealers, and that he had sold intoxicating liquors at his place of business. A careful examination of the record leads to the conclusion that no error has been committed, to the defendant’s prejudice. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK CR 57, 137 P. 1198, 10 Okla. Crim. 672, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-state-oklacrimapp-1914.