State v. Sherman

Citations

• 81 Kan. 874
• 107 P. 33
• 1910 Kan. LEXIS 443

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Constitutional Law — Interstate Commerce — Regulation by the State — Intoxicating Liquors. Section 5 of chapter 164 of the Laws of 1909, which prohibits the taking of orders within this state for intoxicating liquors, is not repugnant to the provisions of the federal constitution giving congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.</p> <p>'2. Criminal Law — Taking Orders in this State for Intoxicating Liquors — Shipment from Another State. “The owner qf intoxicating liquors in another state can not, by virtue of this provision of the federal constitution, come into this state or send his agent here and in defiance of the laws of this state carry on the business of soliciting orders or proposals for the purchase of such intoxicating liquors, to be shipped from such other state, without incurring the penalties of such laws.” (Crigler v. Shepler, 79 Kan. 834, syllabus.)</p> <p>■3. Constitutional Law — Title of an Act — Intoxicating Liquors. This statute is not repugnant to section 16 of article 2 of the constitution of this state.</p> <p>•4. Criminal Law — Information—Duplicity. “Where the statute makes either of two or more distinct acts connected with the same general offense, and subject to the same measure and kind of punishment, indictable separately and as distinct crimes, when each shall have been committed by different persons and at different times, they may, when committed by the same person and at the same time, be coupled in one count as constituting all together one offense only. In such cases the offender may be informed against as for one combined act in violation of the statute, and proof of either of the acts mentioned in the statute and set forth in the information will sustain a conviction.” (The State v. Schweiter, 27 Kan. 499.)</p>