State v. Clark

Citations

• 124 La. 965
• 50 So. 811
• 1909 La. LEXIS 572

Syllabus

<p>1. Indictment and Information (f 121*) — Bill of Particulars.</p> <p>Where, in a prosecution for unlawfully keeping a tippling shop, defendant claimed that he was conducting a business for the sale of nonintoxicating drinks of various sorts, and that he could not properly prepare for trial unless he was informed which one of the drinks sold by him was claimed to be intoxicating, the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars disclosing such fact.</p> <p>2. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 224*) — Formula —Presumption.</p> <p>Where an alleged intoxicating beverage was sold under the trade name “Senoj'” to the trade generally, and was manufactured by a particular concern it would be presumed that it was manufactured in accordance with a formula, and that all of it sold was of a uniform character and quality.</p> <p>3. Intoxicating Diquors (§ 231*) — Intoxicating Character — Evidence—Sales at Other Places.</p> <p>Where a particular beverage, sold under a trade-name to the trade generally, was claimed to be intoxicating, evidence of its intoxicating effects when sold at other places than that of accused charged with the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors was admissible after a foundation had been laid by proof that the beverage sold at such other places was manufactured and sold to the trade generally by the same concern that manufactured the beverage sold by defendant, and was .of the same brand, and in the same condition in which it was received from the manufacturer.</p>