State v. Giroux
Citations
- 75 Kan. 695
- 90 P. 249
- 1907 Kan. LEXIS 117
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Intoxicating Liquors — Information—Duplicity. Where an information contains eleven counts, ten of which charge the defendants with the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors upon three different dates,' and the other count alleges that they are the keepers of a nuisance, which last-named count in part reads: “That on the 6th day of May, 1905, and at divers and other times from that day up to and including the date of the filing of this information, and at the dates of the several offenses hereinbefore charged, a certain place in said county, ... is a place where intoxicating liquors were and are unlawfully sold, bartered and given away, and where persons were and are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors as a beverage, and where intoxicating liquors were and are kept for sale, barter and delivery in violation of law, and where intoxicating liquors, bottles, glasses, kegs, pumps, and bars and other property were and are kept in maintaining said place, . . . and that the said’ Joseph Giroux and Joseph Benoit did, on said May 6, 1905, and at the dates of the offenses herein-before charged and at the date of the filing hereof, unlawfully keep and maintain said place . . . and have kept and maintained the same to the date hereof, and are‘now keeping and maintaining the same;” held, that a motion to quash such count on the ground that. it contained several separate offenses should be denied.</p> <p>2. -Evidence — Nuisance—Articles Seized in the Building. In such a case the exhibition to the jury of articles taken from the place charged to be a nuisance during the time it is alleged to have been such and at the time the defendants were arrested is not erroneous, even though the contents of a part of the bottles and other vessels are not shown to be intoxicating liquor.</p> <p>3. - Prima Facie Proof — Instruction. Where in such' a case intoxicating liquors are taken at the place alleged to be a nuisance, as s
Judges: Graves
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. LaboreSupreme Court of Kansas· 1909-07-03· cited 9×
- State v. ShifflerSupreme Court of Kansas· 1914-12-12· cited 8×
- City of Fort Scott v. DunkertonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1908-05-09· cited 6×
- State v. FeldmanConnecticut Appellate Court· 1964-01-13· cited 2×
- State v. BergerSupreme Court of Kansas· 1916-02-12· cited 2×
- State v. CopelmanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1922-03-11· cited 2×
- State v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1928-06-09
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.