author: PEB CURIAM.

text:
    ED CHAMBLISS v. STATE.
    No. A-2102.
    Opinion Filed November 21, 1914.
    Appeal from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, Judge.
    Ed Chambliss was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Crump, Crump ■& Garrett, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEB CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error' was tried and convicted on an information which charged the unlawful possession of fifty gallons of whisky and one gallon of wine, with the intention of selling the same, and on the 5th day of July, 1913, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, he was sentenced to be confined for sixty days in the county jail, and to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars, and the costs.

Upon a careful examination of the record our conclusion is that this appeal is without merit. The information is sufficient and it appears that the plaintiff in error had a fair trial. The judgment of conviction is, therefore, affirmed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re WILLIAM J. BARBER.
    Nos. A-2323, A-2324.
    Opinion Filed December 5, 1914.
   PER CURIAM.

The petitions for the writ of habeas corpus in No. A-2323 and A-2324 were brought for the purpose of securing bail. The petitioner, W. J. Barber, at the time of the filing of the petitions in this court, had been committed by Lee Daniel, justice of the peace of Tulsa county, in cause No. A-2323 charged with the murder of Ed Plank, committed on the 23rd day of July, 1914. The court is of opinion that bail should be denied in No. A-2323, and the writ discharged, and it is so ordered.

In cause No. A-2324 petitioner was held in the custody of the sheriff by commitment from the same justice of the peace, charged with the murder of Holmes Davidson. The court is of opinion that bail should be allowed in this case and bail fixed at twenty thousand dollars, to be approved by the clerk of the superior court of Tulsa county under the supervision of the judge of the superior court of said county, whose duty it shall be to see that the bond is in proper form, and in every way in keeping with the provisions of the statute.


author: PEE CURIAM.

text:
    JOHN SEARS v. STATE.
    No. A-2157.
    Opinion Filed December 12, 1914.
    Appeal from County Court, Seminole County; A. S. Norvell, Judge.
    John Sears was . convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. A. Patterson, for plaintiff in error.
    C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, John Sears, was convicted at the July, 1913, term of the county court of Seminole county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The appeal was filed in this court on December 31, 1913. The cause was assigned for hearing at the November, 1914, term thereof. No briefs have been filed on behalf of plaintiff in error and no appearance was made for oral argument. The Assistant Attorney General, in open court, moved an affirmation on the ground that the appeal had not been properly prosecuted and had been abandoned. The motion is sustained. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed. Mandate ordered forthwith.


text:
    BOB CHANDLER v. STATE.
    No. A-2129.
    Opinion Filed December 12, 1914.
    Appeal from County Court, Oklahoma County; John W. Hayson, Judge.
    Bob Chandler was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Reardon & Hereford, for plaintiff in error.
    C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Bob Chandler, was tried and convicted at the July, 1913, term of the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six months and a fine of five hundred dollars. The appeal was filed in this court on November 12, 1913. A careful examination of the record discloses no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


author: PEE CUEIAM.

text:
    O. MORGAN v. STATE.
    No. A-2137.
    Opinion Filed December 19, 1914.
    Appeal from County Court, Pawnee County; Geo. B. Merritt, Judge.

      O. Morgan was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    MeNeill & MeNeill, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The plaintiff in error, O. Morgan, was convicted at the July, 1913, term of the county court of Pawnee county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. A careful examination of the record discloses no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    BUN McGEE v. STATE.
    No. A-2028.
    Opinion Filed December 19, 1914.
    Appeal from District Court, Bryan County; Jesse M. Hatchett, Judge.
    Bun McGee was convicted of assault and battery, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    MePherren and Cochran, for plaintiff in error.
    C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Bun McGee, was convicted at the December, 1912, term of the district court of Bryan county on a charge of assault with intent to kill, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days.

A careful examination of the record discloses no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    MONK DULANEY v. STATE.
    No. A-2160.
    Opinion Filed January 16, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, Jefferson County; J. M. Adams, Judge.
    Monk Dulaney was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Hamilton & Saye, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted on an information charging the unlawful conveyance of~ intoxicating liquors. On the 17th day of October, 1913, judgment was entered, and he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict to be confined in the county jail for a term of ninety days and to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and costs. Upon a careful examination of the record, we are satisfied that no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error was committed on his trial, nor have we any reason to doubt that the verdict was reached only upon a fair and full consideration of the case by the jury. The judgment of conviction is, therefore, affirmed. Mandate forthwith.


text:
    WILLIAM SMILEY v. STATE.
    No. A-2139.
    Opinion Filed January 16, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, Kiowa County; J. S. Carpenter, Judge.
    William Smiley was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    I-Iays & Hughes, for plaintiff in error.
    E. G. firpilinan, for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

Plaintiff in error, William Smiley, was convicted at the July, 1913, term of the county court of Kiowa eounty on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of two fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of one hundred twenty days. A careful examination of the record reveals no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    S. H. RHINE v. STATE.
    No. A-2318.
    Opinion Filed January 16, 1914.
    Appeal from County Court, Hughes County; J. Eoss Bailey, Judge.
    S. H. Ehine was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Dismissed.
    Crump, Skinner & Anglin, for plaintiff in error.
    C- J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The plaintiff in error, S. H. Ehine, was convicted at the June, 1914, term of the eounty court of Hughes eounty on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of three months. On December 1, 1914, the plaintiff in error filed a motion in this court to dismiss the appeal. The motion is sustained and the appeal accordingly dismissed.


text:
    DILLARD ROBERTS v. STATE.
    No. A-2144.
    Opinion Filed January 16, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, Jefferson County; J.' M. Adams, Judge.

      Dillard Roberts was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed^
    J. H. Harper, for plaintiff in error.
    Ohas. West, Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an information charging the unlawful sale of whisky to Walter Norton. On the 14th day of October, 1913, judgment was entered, and he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict to be confined in the county jail for thirty days and to pay a fine of fifty dollars and costs. Only two questions are urged for a reversal of the judgment: The first is that the court erred in giving the statutory definition in an instruction on reasonable doubt. No objection was made or exception taken to the giving of this instruction. For this reason we cannot do otherwise than hold that the instruction was harmless error. Harris v. State, 10 Okla. Or. 416; 137 Pac. 365. Four or five witnesses testified as to the transaction. Plaintiff in error offered no testimony. AVe think that this appeal is without merit. The judgment of conviction is, therefore, affirmed. Mandate forthwith.


text:
    B. W. BRADLEY v. STATE.
    No. A-2100.
    Opinion Filed January 23, 1915.
    Appeal from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, Judge.
    B. W. Bradley was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    S. E. Gidney, for plaintiff in error.
    C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, B. W. Bradley, was convicted at the July, 1913, term of the superior court of Muskogee county on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred dollars and imprisonment in .the county jail for a period of thirty days. The questions of law raised by counsel have been heretofore decided adversly to their contentions by this court. The facts clearly disclose the guilt of the accused. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


author: PER CURlAM.

text:
    CITY OF KINGFISHER v. H. H. McFADDEN.
    No. A-1841.
    Opinion Filed February 20, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, Kingfisher County; John M. Graham, Judge.
    Appeal by the city of Kingfisher from an adverse judgment in action against H. II. McFadden.
    Dismissed.

      John T. Bradley, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
   PER CURlAM.

This is an appeal by the eity of Kingfisher from an adverse judgment of the county court of Kingfisher county in an action by the city of Kingfisher against I-I. II. McPadden for the violation of a' city ordinance. Por the reasons given by this court in the opinion in City of Oklahoma City v. Howard A. Tucker, ante, the appeal in this ease is dismissed.


text:
    STEVE SHANNON v. STATE.
    No. A-2180.
    Opinion Filed February 6, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, McIntosh County; Ben D. Gross, Judge.
    Steve Shannon was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Green & Robertson, for plaintiff in error.
    R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Steve Shannon, was convicted of the offense of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail, and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. The judgment was entered on the 22nd day of November, 1913. To reverse the judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court on January 19, 1914, a petition in error with case-made. No briefs have been filed, and when the case was called for final submission, no. appearance was made on behalf of plaintiff in error. Whereupon the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal. We have examined the record proper and have discovered no error that will warrant a reversal of the judgment-The motion to affirm is, therefore, sustained.


text:
    MONK DULANEY v. STATE.
    No. A-2192.
    Opinion Filed February 6, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, Jefferson County; J. M. Adams, Judge.
    Monk Dulaney was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Hamilton & Saye, for plaintiff in error.
    R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted on an information charging the selling of intoxicating liquor to one John Johnson. On the 5th day of November, 1913, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, he was by the court sentenced to be confined in the county jail for a term of ninety days and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. No briefs have been filed, and when the case was called for final submission no appearance was made on behalf of plaintiff in error. Thereupon, the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal. We have examined the record proper and have discovered no error that will warrant a reversal of the judgment. The motion to affirm is, therefore, sustained.


text:
    GEORGE HIGH v. STATE.
    No. A-2164.
    Opinion Filed February 6, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, Pontotoc County; I. M. King, Judge.
    George High was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Order that proceedings abate.
    Crawford & Bolen, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of the offense of selling alcohol to one Charley Rainey. October 9, 1913, judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict. To reverse the judgment an appeal was perfected by filing in this court on January 7, 1914, a petition in error with case-made. Since the appeal was taken and before the final submission of the cause, suggestion of plaintiff in error’s death has been called to the attention of the court by his counsel. “In a criminal prosecution, the purpose of the proceedings being to punish the defendant in person, the action must necessarily abate upon his death; and where it is made to appear to the court that a plaintiff in error has died, pending the determination of his appeal, the cause will be abated.” (Yota v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 26, 133 Pac. 257.)

It is, therefore, adjudged and ordered that all proceedings in this prosecution be abated. The record is remanded with direction to the county court of Pontotoc county to enter its appropriate order to that effect.


text:
    B. W. BRADLEY v. STATE.
    No. A-2099.
    Opinion Filed February 9, 1915.
    Appeal from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar McCain, Judge.
    B. W. Bradley was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed.
    S. E. Gidney, for plaintiff in error.
    C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted on an information charging the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of two hundred fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. On July 3, 1913, the court rendered judgment and sentence in accordance with the verdict. To reverse the judgment an appeal was perfected. It appears from the record that the defendant did not testify. It further appears that the county attorney, in his closing argument to the jury, arguing to the jury that the proof upon the part of the state showed that the defendant had the intoxicating liquor with the intention of selling it, and in connection therewith used the following language:

“And no one has taken the stand and said that he did not intend to sell it.” Which remark was duly objected to by counsel for the defendant, who requested the court to instruct the jury to disregard the statement of counsel as being improper. Which objection was overruled and request denied. To which action of the court exceptions were taken.

Our procedure criminal provides that: " * * * the person charged shall, at his own request, but not otherwise, be a competent witness, and his failure to make such request shall not create any presumption against him, nor be mentioned on the trial; if commented upon by counsel, it shall be ground for a new trial.” (See. 5881 Revised Laws.)

The statutory rule that no reference shall be made to the failure or refusal of a defendant to avail himself of his right to testify, shall not be commented on in the event he does not become a witness in his own behalf, is found in the statutes of nearly every state, and this rule has been enforced by numerous decisions of this court. Sturgis v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 362; Brown v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 442; Kelly v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 175; Nolen v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 27; Wineberger v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 441; Teer v. State. 10th Okla. Cr. 651; In Sturgis v. State, above cited, it is said: "The statute is mandatory, and, when it is violated, either in its letter or its spirit, a new trial must be granted or upon appeal a reversal will follow. The trial court, therefore erred in not granting a new trial on account of the fact that the county attorney, in his argument called the attention of the jury to the fact that the defendant had failed to testify in his own behalf- If counsel for the defense in any manner refer to the failure of the defendant to take the witness stand the court should at once intervene and rebuke such attempt and see that it is not repeated. ’ ’

The contention is made that the statement is an allusion to the ailure of the defendant to take the stand and testify as a witness in his own behalf, and the further contention is made that the action of the court in refusing to sustain the objection made, and to instruct the jury to disregard the statement of the prosecuting attorney as being improper, was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.

We are -of opinion that these contentions are correct. The statement made could mean nothing else but to point out the fact to the jury that the defendant had not testified- The court at least should have sustained the objection and admonished the jury to disregard the statement made. It follows that the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted.


text:
    STEVE SHANNON v. STATE.
    No. A-2179.
    Opinion Filed February 20, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, McIntosh County; Ben D. Gross, Judge
    Steve Shannon, convicted of violating the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Green & Robertson, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of McIntosh county on a charge that he did unlawfully sell to one Thomas Williams a pint of alcohol. On the 19th day of November, 1913, he was sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and the costs taxed at $26.25, and that he be confined in the county jail for a term of sixty days. A careful examination of the record discloses no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of plaintiff in error. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    NICHOLAS BILLY v. STATE.
    No. A-2126.
    Appeal from County Court, Stephens County; J. W. Marshall, Judge
    Nicholas Billy was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Womack & Brown, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Nicholas Billy, was convicted at the September, 1913, term of the county court of Stephens county on a charge of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor from one place in said county to another place therein, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. A careful examination of the record discloses no error sufficient to justify a reversal. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    In re HENRY PRUITT.
    No. A-1853.
    Opinion Filed February 20, 1915.
    Stewart & Cruce, for petitioner.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding instituted in this court by Henry Pruitt, who alleges that he is unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the sheriff of Johnston county, Oklahoma. The petitioner alleges that he is unlawfully held in custody under the following state of facts: That at the June, 1911, term of the-district court of Johnston county, Oklahoma, the grand jury of the said county returned a pretended indictment, jointly charging one A. Washmood, J. B. Miller, Henry Pruitt, Clint Pruitt, B. B. Burwell, E. P. Alford, and your petitioner with the crime of murder. A copy of said indictment is attached to and made a part of the application. It is alleged in the first count, that the defendants

“* * * together with divers other evil disposed persons whose names to the' grand jurors are unknown on the first day of July, A. D. 1906, within the then southern district of the Indian Territory, and what is now Johnston county in the state of Oklahoma, unlawfully, wickedly, feloniously and with maliee aforethought, devising and intending to kill and murder one Ben Collins, feloniously, unlawfully, and with malice aforethought, did conspire, combine, confederate and agree between and among themselves him the said Ben Collins to kill and murder at said time, contrary to,” etc.

It is alleged in another count:

“That said defendants devising, and intending as aforesaid, after-wards, to-wit: on the 1st day of August, A. D. 1906, within the southern district of the Indian Territory, but what is now Johnston county, in the state of Oklahoma, did then and thgre unlawfully, feloniously, and with malice aforethought, in pursuance of said conspiracy, combination and agreement and in the execution of the said first mentioned premises between and among themselves, as aforesaid, with force and arms in and upon one Ben Collins in the peace of the United States then and there being, feloniously, wilfully and of their malice aforethought, did make an assault with shot guns then and there charged with gunpowder and leaden bullets, which said shotguns they the said defendants, in their hands then and there had and held, then and there feloniously, wilfully and upon the body of the said Ben Collins giving to him the said Ben Collins, a mortal wound of which said mortal wound he the said Ben Collins then and there instantly died, and so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do say that the said defendants, him the said Ben Collins in the manner and form aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully and of their malice aforethought did kill and murder at said time, contrary to the form of the statutes in such eases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America, and now contrary to the form of the statutes of such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state.”

It appears by the allegations of the petition that petitioner has been arrested by J. M. Williams, sheriff of Johnston county, Oklahoma, and is now held unlawfully in the custody of said sheriff under a warrant issued upon said pretended indictment.

It is further alleged that the territory embraced in said Johnston county, was, on said last day of August, 1906, a part of the Indian Territory, and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America, and that the said district court is without jurisdiction to hold or try petitioner for said alleged offense and praying that a writ of habeas corpus issue, and that upon the hearing thereon petitioner be discharged from the arrest and jurisdiction of said district court, and pending said hearing that he be admitted to bail.

Upon the application being presented to this court, and upon representations made that the question of jurisdiction of the state courts in such case was then pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, a writ of habeas corpus was allowed, and the petitioner’s bail was filed in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars. There was also filed a waiver signed by the petitioner and his counsel, waiving all right to the production^ of his body, according to the command of the writ, before this court, and requesting the court to proceed to inquire into the cause of his detention, and give judgment thereon without such production.

It is admitted that prior to statehood, an indictment was returned by the grand jury in the southern district in the Indian Territory, charging the petitioner and his co-defendants with conspiracy to murder, and with the murder of Ben Collins, and that said indictment was pending in said court on the admission of Oklahoma as a state. That said indictment charged the identical offense that is charged in the indictment referred to in the petition. It has been called to the attention of the court that the Supreme Court of the United States has failed to pass upon the question here presented in the case filed therein by ne,titioner’s counsel. Ex parte Janas James, 231 U. S. 744, 58 L. Ed. 463. The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma had before it the question here raised in the case of Higgins v. Brown, 20 Okla. 355; 90 Pac. 703, and in that ease it is held that the state courts had jurisdiction to try indictments for murder committed in the Indian Territory before statehood. Baker v. State; 3 Okla. Cr. 265, 105 Pac. 379; Mendenhall v. U. S., 6 Okla. Cr. 436; 119 Pac. 594; and Washmood v. U. S., 6 Okla. Cr. 254; 136 Pac. 184; follow the decision in Higgins v. Brown, supra, and since the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Pitket v. U. S., 216 U. S. 456, 54 L. Ed. 566, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in the case of Coyle v. Smith, 28 Okla. 121, 113 Pac. 944, has held that the Pickett case was not in conflict with the decision in Higgins v. Brown.

The Supreme Court of the United States not having determined the question here presented contrary to the holding of the appellate courts of this state, it is our opinion that the district court of Johnson county has jurisdiction to try the indictment. It follows that the warrant of arrest was properly issued, and that the petitioner was in the legal custody of the respondent. It is, therefore, ordered by the court that the writ of habeas corpus heretofore issued be quashed and the petitioner is remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Johnston county, Oklahoma.


text:
    GEORGE HOPKINS v. STATE.
    No. A-2146.
    Opinion Filed March 4, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, Comanche County; I-I. N. Whalin, Judge.
    George Hopkins, convicted of violating the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Pain & Young, and Stevens & Myers, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and S. I. McElhoes, for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction had on an information which charged that the defendant did have in his possession nineteen pints of whisky and forty-four quarts of beer, with the intent to sell the same. On the 13th day of September, 1913, the court sentenced the defendant to be confined in the county jail for ninety days and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars. The evidence in the ease was substantially as follows:

W. E. Nix, sheriff, testified that on the 24th day of July, 1913, he found at the defendant’s place of business, a livery barn in Lawton, forty-four quarts of beer and nineteen pints of whisky; that several bottles of the beer was in an ice box; that the defendant was present when he seized the liquors; that he was acquainted with the reputation of the defendant’s place as being a place where intoxicating liquors were kept and sold and that it was bad.

W. P. Pierce, deputy sheriff, testified that he was with the sheriff when the liquor was seized, and the defendant Hopkins said, “That was his last,’’ and that he knew the reputation of the place as to being a place where intoxicating liquors were kept and it was bad.

A certified copy of a retail liquor dealer’s license from the office of the Internal Revenue Collector of the district of Oklahoma was introduced, showing that the same was issued to George J. Hopkins, retail liquor dealer, Lawton, Okla., Lot 24, Block 23, date of payment, July 21st, 1913, amount of tax paid, $25.00.

This was all the evidence in the ease. The defense offered no testimony. The petition in error contains seventeen assignments. It is evi-vident that justice has been done and the judgment ought not be set aside except for some manifest error in the proceedings prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant. A careful examination of the record fails to disclose any such error. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.


author: PEE CUBIAM.

text:
    MIKE MARKESON v. STATE.
    No. A-2145.
    Opinion Filed March 4, 1914.
    Appeal from County Court, Comanche County; H. N. Whalin, Judge.
    Mike Markeson, convicted of violating the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Reversed.
    Stevens & Myers’, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and S. I. McElhoes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUBIAM.

This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction had upon an information which charged that, “Within said county and state, on the 15th day of July, 1913, Mike Markeson, then and there being, did then and there wilfully, and unlawfully, have in his possession intoxicating liquorsj to-wit: beer, with the purpose and intent of him the said Mike Markeson, to barter, sell and give away the same, contrary to,” etc. To reverse the judgment rendered on the verdict, an appeal is taken. The Attorney General has filed a confession of error herein as follows:

“Comes now the defendant in error and shows to the court that on page 36 of the brief of plaintiff in error is set out specification of error Number 5, as follows: ‘The court erred in refusing to sustain the challenge for cause of the plaintiff in error to juror C. L. Bower, after all the peremptory challenges of said'plaintiff in error had been exhausted and in permitting said juror under such circumstances to remain on the jury, for that said juror was not at the time of his retention a qualified elector in the precinct in which he resides.’ Then follows two paragraphs of comment which show that at the time the juror, C. L. Bower, was sworn and served in this ease he was not a qualified elector in any ward or township in Comanche county. Section 3698 Rev. Laws 1910, provides that male citizens residing in this state having the qualifications of electors shall be qualified jurors. It is clear that Bower was not a qualified elector, and we have been unable to find any authority 6r line of reasoning which would show that he could serve as'such juror.
“Believing that error was committed in not sustaining the challenge to this juror, it is our opinion that the cause should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.”

We are of opinion that the confession of error is well.founded, and should be sustained. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded.


text:
    C. P. CARR v. STATE.
    No. A-2233.
    Opinion Filed March 6, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, Wagoner County; W. T. Hunt, Judge.
    C. P. Carr, convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    J. S. Dickey, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
    R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Wagoner county on an information which charged the unlawful sale of one pint of whisky to one Prank Letts, and was, on November 12th, 1913, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, sentenced to be confined in the county jail for thirty days and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. He appeals from the judgment. On March 9, 1915, there was filed by counsel for plaintiff in error a motion to dismiss the appeal. The appeal herein is, therefore, dismissed and the cause remanded to the county court of Wagoner county with directions to cause its judgment and sentence to be carried into execution. Mandate forthwith.


text:
    LINK BROWN and MRS. LINK BROWN v. STATE.
    No. A-2221.
    Opinion Filed March 6, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, Jefferson County; J. M. Adams, Judge.
    Link Brown and Mrs. Link Brown were convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeal.
    Affirmed.
    J. H. Harper, for plaintiff in error.
    R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs in error were convicted under an information whch jointly charged that Link Brown and Mrs. Link Brown did unlawfully sell whisky to Zack Triet. The jury failed to fix the punishment. On the 26th day of January, 1914, the court sentenced Link Brown to be confined in the county jail for sixty days and to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, and sentenced Mrs. Link Brown to be confined in the county jail for thirty days and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. We have carefully examined the record and find that there is evidence sufficient to warrant the jury in reaching the conclusion that did in this case. There is no error disclosed by the record and we would not be warranted in reversing this case on the ground that the evidence is insufficient. The judgment of the county court of Jefferson county herein is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    GEORGE WHITE v. STATE.
    No. A-2209.
    Opinion Filed March 6, 1915.
    Appeal from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Parrar L. McCain, Judge".

      George White, convicted of a volation of the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. J. Sullivan, for plaintiff in error.
    S. P. Preeling, Atty- Gen., and E. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUBIAM.

The plaintiff in error, George White, was convicted in the superior court of Muskogee county on a charge that he did have in his possession unlawfully intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same. On the 16th day of December, 1913, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, he was sentenced to be confined in the county jail 'for sixty days and to pay a fine of one hundred fifty dollars. The main question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdiet. After a careful examinatoin of the record we are not prepared to say that) there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict; though the record does not make a strong case yet the trial judge having refused to grant a new trial upon that ground, we would not feel justified in reversing his determination upon that point. The judgment of the superior court of Muskogee county herein is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    JOHN MYERS v. STATE.
    No. A-2145.
    Opinion Filed March 6, 1914.
    Appeal from County Court, Osage County; Paul B. Mason, Judge.
    John Myers was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Luther James, for plaintiff in error.
    C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

John Myers, the plaintiff in error, was convicted at the October, 1913, term of the county court of Osage county on a charge of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor from one place in said county to another place therein and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. There is no merit whatever in this appeal. The plaintiff in error was charged jointly with others of conveying 2880 pints of beer from the Keystone Perry, in Osage county, to Jack Harlow’s farm in the southeastern portion of said county. There is no question about his guilt, and the record contains no errors of law justifying a reversal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


text:
    EDWARD J. COYLE v. A. H. HUSTON, District Judge.
    No A-2300.
    Opinion Filed March 6, 1915.
    Petition for the writ of mandamus.
    Writ allowed.
    P. W. Cress, C. G. Horner, and P. H. McGuire, for petitioner.
    John Adams, Co. Atty., for respondent.
   PEE CUEIAM.

This is an application for the writ of mandamus filed by Edward J. Coyle against A. H. Huston, judge of the district court of Logan county, for the purpose of requiring the said district judge to certify his disqualification to sit on the trial of a cause pending in said court wherein the state of Oklahoma prosecutes the said Edward J. Coyle on a criminal charge. We are of opinion that a detailed statement, or a discussion of the facts proved at the hearing is unnecessary. It is sufficient to say that it appears probable that the judge of said court is a material witness on behalf of the party moving for such change. It is our judgment that the writ of mandamus should be awarded and the change of judge directed. It is so ordered.


text:
    WILL FILLINGIM v. STATE.
    No. A-2202.
    Opinion Filed March 13, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, Kiowa County; J. S. Carpenter, Judge.
    Will Pillingim was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Thos. W. Conner, for plaintiff in error*
    C. J. Davenport and E. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Will Pillingim, was convicted at the November, 1914, term of the county court of Kiowa county on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of two hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty clays. We find no error sufficient to justify a reversal. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    BURT GRANT v. STATE.
    No. A-2150.
    Opinion Filed March 16, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, Pottawatomie County; Hal Johnson, Judge.
    Burt Grant, convicted of violating the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Affirmed-
    Pitman & Goode, for plaintff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of unlawfully selling whisky to Henry Boushay, and on the 25th day of September, 1913, judgment was rendered, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to be confined in the county jail for a period of one hundred and five days, and to pay a fine of three hundred dollars, and costs, taxed at $65.55. Prom the judgment an appeal was taken. The questions presented have heretofore been passed upon and determined adversely to the contentions of the learned counsl for plaintiff in error. It 'is sufficient to say that the guilt of plaintiff in error was satisfactorily proven and no testimony was offered in his behalf. It follows that the judgment herein should be, and the same is hereby affirmed, and the cause remanded to the county court of Pottawatomie county with direction to enforce its judgment and sentence.


text:
    ALBERT ALLEN v. STATE.
    No. A-2224.
    Opinion Filed March 20, 1915.
    Appeal from County Court, Coal County; P. E. Wilhelm, Judge.
    Albert Allen, convicted of selling cider, appeals.
    Reversed.
    C. M. Threadgll, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error w»s convicted on an information charging ‘ ‘ that the said Albert Allen did then and there, wilfully and unlawfully sell and fijrnish to Tom Elldns certain intoxicating liquors, the particular kind and character of which being affiant unknown, but said liquors being then and there known as ‘cider’, contrary to,” etc. On the 9th day of January, 1914, judgment was rendered and he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict of the jury to be confined for thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. The complaining witness, Tom Elkins, testified that he bought some apple eider from the defendant in his store at Globe; that he drank five glasses and it made him drunk.

For the defense, Edgar Oaruthers testified that he sold to the-defendant the cider in question, and the same was not subject to a special tax under the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States; that it was non-intoxicating; that he often drank seven or eight glasses without feeling it.

Albert Allen, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he had a store and blaclrsmith shop at Globe; that he often drank five or six glasses of the cider, and knew it was not intoxicating; that the complaining witness, Tom Adkins, was not drunk at his store.

'Three or four witnesses testified that they had drunk from half a dozen to a dozen glasses of the cider and knew it was not intoxicating. Several witnesses testified to the good character of the defendant-

Our statute provides: “It shall be lawful to sell in this state apple cider manufactured either within or without the state from the unadulterated juice of apples, if the same is of such a character as not to be subject to a special tax under the internal revenue laws of the Unted States, and shall comply with the requirements of the pure food laws of the United States, and of this state.” See. 3606 Rev. Laws 1910.)

That the verdict and judgment in this case is contrary to law and the evidence there can be no doubt. The judgment of conviction herein is, therefore, reversed.


text:
    Ex Parte ARTHUR GIVENS.
    No. A-2420.
    Opinion Filed March 20, 1915.
    Chas. I-I. Garnett, for petitioner.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Writ of habeas corpus awarded, and petitioner discharged.
   PER CURIAM.

A petition is presented in this ease for a writ of habeas corpus directed by A. V. Skelton, warden of the Oklahoma State Reformatory at Granite, for the discharge of Arthur Givens. The peti-ton alleges in substance, that petitioner is held under a commitment issued pursuant to and in execution of a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county, rendered on or about the 15th day of July, 1914, wherein petitioner was adjudged guilty of the crime of obtaining property under false pretenses, and was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of eighteen months. That during his imprisonment, and on the 30th day of September, 1914, Hon. J. J. McAlester, Lieutenant Governor, as Acting Governor, in the absence of the Governor from the state, issued a full unconditional pardon for said crime of which he was convicted. That this pardon was presented to A. V. Skelton, warden of the Oklahoma state reformatory, who declines and refuses to honor same and still declines and refuses to release petitioner from csutody. A duplicate of said pardon is attached to the petition.

Upon the atithority of State v. Stewart, ante, the pardon herein is a valid and effectual pardon. Eor the reasons stated in the opinion in the Stewart ease, we are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to his discharge, and it s so ordered.


text:
    Ex parte W. C. BURGER.
    No. A-2419.
    Opinion Filed March 24, 1914.
    Chas. I-I. Garnett, for petitioner.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Write of habeas corpus awarded, and petitioner discharged.
   PER CURIAM.

A petition is presented in this ease for a writ of habeas corpus, directed to A. V. Skelton, warden of the Oklahoma State Reformatory, at Granite, for the discharge of W. C. Burger. The petition alleges in substance, that petitioner is held under a commitment issued pursuant to and 'in execution of a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county, rendered on or about the 15th day of July, 1914, wherein petitioner was adjudged guilty of the crime of obtaining property under false pretenses, and was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of eighteen months. That during his imprisonment, and on the 30th day of September, 1914, Hon. J. J. McAlester, Lieutenant Governor, as Acting Governor, in the absence of the Governor from the state, issued a full unconditional pardon for said crime of which he was convicted. That this pardon was presented to A. V. Skelton, warden of the Oklahoma 'State Reformatory, who .'declined and refused to honor the same, and still declines and refuses to release petitioner from custody. A duplicate of said pardon is attached to the petition.

Upon the authority of State v. Stewart, ante, the pardon herein is a valid and effectual pardon. . For the reasons stated in the opinion in the Stewart case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to his discharge, and it is so ordered.


text:
    In re BOB STANDIFER.
    No. A-1272.
   Application of Bob Standfer for writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of being admitted to bail. Application denied.


text:
    Ex parte WARREN ZIMMERMAN.
    No. A-1406.
    Petition of Warren Zimmerman for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
    John L. Gleason, for petitioner.
    Ohas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The petition filed on behalf of said Warren Zimmerman alleges in substance that he is restrained of his liberty and imprisoned in the county jail of Texas county by D. H. Chenault, sheriff of said county. It appearing that the petitioner is held under and by virtue of an indictment duly returned into the district court of Texas county, the writ will be denied-


text:
    In re J. H. COLBY et al.
    No. A-1490.
   Application of "J. II. Colby and Wade Stovall for writ of habeas corpus, for the purpose of being admitted to bail. Writ issued and returnable before Hon. Stilwell H. Russell, district judge at Ardmore. On the hearing so' had petitioners admitted to bail.


text:
    In re WM. LOOPER.
    No. A-1534.
   Application of William Looper for a writ of habeas corpus to release his wife, Annie Looper, from the custody of the Superntendent of the State Insane Asylum at Norman. The respondent consenting, Annie Looper is discharged.


text:
    In re R. D. LOVE.
    No. A-1546.
   PER CURIAM.

Application by habeas corpus for the purpose of letting petitioner to bail. Bail allowed and fixed in the sum of ten thousand dollars, to be approved by the clerk of the district court of Choctaw county.


text:
    In re W. L. BATES, et al.
    No. A-1563.
   Habeas corpus application to be let to bail by W. L. Bates, Will Stiles and Millard Vaught. Bail allowed and fixed at twelve thousand dollars for Vaught, and eight thousand dollars each for Bates and Stiles, to be approved by the clerk of the district court of LeElore county.


text:
    In re JOE MULHOLLAND.
    No. A-1616.
    Petition of Joe Mulholland for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
    Richardson & Warren, for petitioner.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an application to this court for writ of ha-beas corpus to release the petitioner, Joe Mulholland, from the custody of W. H. Loftin, sheriff of Choctaw county. It appearing that said petitioner is held under and by virtue of a bench warrant issued upon an information duly filed by county attorney in the district court of Choctaw county, wherein the petitioner is charged with the crime of sodomy, the writ will be denied.


text:
    JOE PROCTOR v. STATE.
    No. A-1635.
    Appeal from County Court, Oklahoma County; John W. Ilayson, Judge.
    Joe Proctor convicted of violatnig the prohbitory law, appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    J. H. Beaty, Ledru Guthrie, McAdams & Haskell, for - plaintiff in error.
    R. McMillan, Asst. Atty- Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of the offense of having intoxicating liquors in his possession with the intent and purpose to sell the same contrary to law. To reverse the judgment an appeal was perfected. Pending the determination of the appeal, on the 30th day of September, 1914, a full and unconditional pardon was granted. This pardon,has been exhibited to the court and filed in the ease.

Upon the authority of Stewart v. State, ante, 146 Pac. 921, it is our opinion that the same is a valid and effectual pardon. When an appeal from a judgment of conviction is pending in this court and the fact that a pardon has been granted is called to the attention of the court, the appeal will be dismissed as having been abandoned. The appeal herein is, therefore, dismissed.


text:
    In re H. H. BROWN.
    No. A-1667.
    Application of H. H. Brown for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an application to this court for a writ of habeas corpus to release petitioner, H. H. Brown, from the custody of Jno. L. Wisener, sheriff of Muskogee county. The above cause coming on for hearing and the same being’ duly presented to the court, the court finds that the application is without merit. The writ of habeas corpus is, therefore, denied.


text:
    AL FRANKLIN AND ELMER JOHNSON v. STATE.
    No. A-1676.
    Appeal from County Court, Oklahoma County; John W. Hayson, Judge.
    A1 Franklin and Elmer Johnson were convicted of gaming, and appeal.
    Reversed as to Franklin and dismissed as to Johnson.
    Reardon & Hereford, for plaintiff in error.
    C- J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

A1 Franklin and Elmer Johnson were convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of operating a gambling game, and their punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six months, and a fine of one thousand dollars each. An appeal from the judgment was duly lodged in this court. Counsel for plaintiff in error have called the attention of the court to the fact that Johnson has been pardoned by the Governor. This appeal, as to Johnson is, therefore,dismssed. There is no evidence in the record which tends reasonably to establish the offense charged against Franklin. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates the guilt of the plaintiff in error Johnson. A demurrer to the evidence as to Franklin should have been sustained by the trial court. The judgment as to him is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.


text:
    In re ULYS SANDERS.
    No. A-1694.
   PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus petition to let to bail Ulys Sanders. Bail allowed and fixed at one thousand dollars, to be approved by the clerk of the district court of Sequoyah county.


author: PEE CTJEIAM.

text:
    In re BIRD GEE.
    No. A-1704.
    Application of Bird Gee for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.

      J. W. Bartholomew, for petitioner-
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CTJEIAM.

The petition filed on behalf of said Bird Gee, alleges in substance that he is illegally restrained of his liberty by Jack Spain, sheriff of Oklahoma county, and that ho is held in custody by virtue of a certain commitment issued on the preliminary examination by Sam Bartell, a justice of the peace in and for Oklahoma county, upon the cijhrge ,of perjury; that there was no testimony to show that defendant committed an offense as charged, and said commitment was issued without authority of law and was wholly void, in that there was no legal evidence adduced to prove or tending to prove in any manner that there is probable cause to believe the defendant to be guilty of the crime of perjury, which it is alleged will more fully appear from the transcript of the testimony taken upon said examination, which is annexed to and made a part of said petition. Upon the consideration of all the evidence presented in support of the application we are of opinion that it is sufficient to sustain the commitment. It is, therefore, considered and adjudged that the writ be denied.


text:
    In re GEO. FOSTER.
    No.-1719.
    Application of Geo. Poster for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
   PEE CURIAM.

Application by habeas corpus for the purpose of letting petitioner to bail. Application denied.


text:
    In re TOM CHEADLE.
    No. A-1725.
   Application of Tom Cheadle for writ of habeas corpus. Proceedings dismissed.


text:
    In re JOE HAST.
    No. 1773.
    Petition of Joe Hasty for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
    Malloy & Lindsey, for petitioner.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CURIAM.

Petition filed on behalf of said Joe Hasty alleges in substance that he is illegally restrained of his Iberty and is unlawfully imprisoned in the county jail of Oklahoma county by Jack Spain, sheriff of said county; that the cause of said restraint is that your petitioner was charged jointly with Nellie Martin with the crime of adultery, by information filed in the district court at said county; that your petitioner and the said Nellie Martin were jointly tried in said court by a jury, which jury rendered a verdict of not guilty as to said Nellie Martin, but not guilty as to your petitioner; that because of said verdiet your petitioner is being held in the county jail of said county; that said restraint is illegal and unauthorized, because under the law the acquittal of the said joint defendant Nellie Martin amounts to an acquittal of your petitioner, and said verdict and judgment convicting him is, therefore, unlawful and void and of no effect. The demurrer will be sustained and the writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    In re W. C. CARTER.
    No. A-1812.
   Petition of W. 0. Garter for writ of habeas corpus. Leave granted to withdraw pettion.


text:
    STATE ex rel. HARMON v. SCOTT, County Judge.
    No. A-1843.
   State ex rel. C. N. Harmon, county attorney of Garfield county v. Win-field Scott, county judge of Garfield county. Pettion for writ of mandamus. Writ allowed.


text:
    In re. CHESTER PARKEY.
    No. A-1846.
    Petition of Chester Parkey for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
    B. W. Buckner, for petitioner.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The petition filed on behalf of said Chester Parkey alleges in substance that he is unlawfully restrained of his liberty in the. Oklahoma Beformatory at Granite. It appearing that said petitoner is ¿.eld in custody under and by virtue of a commitiirent issued by the superior court of Garfield county, issued in pursuance of the judgment and sentence of said court, rendered upon a plea of guilty to an information charging burglary, the writ of habeas corpus will be denied.


text:
    In re C. U. CRITTENDEN.
    No. A-1869.
    Petition of C. U. Crittenden for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ awarded.
    B. E. Wolf-, for petitioner.
    Geo. G. Graham, Co. Atty. of Cleveland county, for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The petitioner, C. U. Crittenden, represents that she is restrained of her liberty and unlawfully imprisoned in the county jail of Cleveland county by I. B. Sale, sheriff of said county. That she is held in custody by virtue of a warrant of commitment issued on a pretended judgment rendered by S. N. Moore, a justice of the peace of the city of Norman, wherein she was adjudged to pay a fine of fifteen dollars and costs. The petitioner has fully satisfied said judgment by the payment of said fine, which payment was made before said commitment issued. Upon the filing .of the petition the writ issued. Upon the return and the hearing had it is by the court, ordered that petitioner be discharged.


text:
    Ex parte FRANK GUINN.
    No. A-1870.
    Application of Frank Guinn for a writ of habeas corpus.
    Cause dismissed.
    Geo. L. Bowman, and E. J. Giddings, for petitioner.
   PER CURIAM.

The petition filed on behalf of said Frank Guinn alleges in substance that he is illegally restrained of his liberty by Clyde Smith, sheriff of Kingfisher county; that the" pretence of said restraint is that your petitioner is held upon a warrant out of the county court of Kingfisher county, issued on a complaint charging the petitioner as an officer of election with removing ballot boxes previous to the time of closing the polls. That said complaint does not charge an offense against the laws of the state of Oklahoma, and that the same affirmatively appears upon its face that the said eounty court has no jurisdiction over the alleged offense, nor of the subject matter of the action, nor of the person of your petitioner. That pending the determination of tills cause your petitioner be admitted to bail, bail fixed in the sum of five hundred dollars, to be approved by the clerk of the district court of Kingfisher eounty. Cause dismissed.


text:
    In re O. A. SLOAN.
    No. A-1871.
    Application of O. A. Sloan for a writ of habeas corpus.
    Cause dismissed.
    Geo- L. Bowman, and E. J. Giddings, for petitioner.
   PER CURIAM.

The petition filed on behalf of said O. A. Sloan alleges in substance that he is illegally restrained of his liberty by Clyde Smith, sheriff of Kingfisher county; that the pretense of said restraint is that your petitioner is held upon a warrant out of the county court of Kingfisher eounty, issued on a complaint charging the petitioner as an officer of election with removing ballot.boxes previous to the time of closing the polls. That said complaint does not charge an offense against the laws of the state of Oklahoma, and that the same affirmatively appears upon its face that the said county court has no jurisdiction over the alleged offense, nor of the subject matter of the action, nor of the person of your petitioner. That pending the determination of this cause your petitioner be admitted to bail, bail fixed in the sum of five hundred dollars, to be approved by the clerk of the district court of Kingfisher county. Cause dismissed.


text:
    In re GEO. HICKS.
    Nos. A-1904 and A-1903.
    Application of George I-Iieks, Jr., for a writ of habeas corpus,
    denied.
    Kyle & McCombs, and J. II. Stolper, public defender, for the petitioner.
    L. C. McNabb, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an application to this court for writ of habeas corpus to release petitioner, George I-Iieks, Jr., from the custody of John E. Johnson, sheriff of Sequoyah county. It appears from the answer filed by the respondent that petitioner is held in custody to answer an information pending and undetermined in the district court of Sequoyah county for the crime of murder. The petitioner being held by virtue of an information pending in a court of competent jurisdiction, the writ will be denied.


author: PER CURIAM,

text:
    In re DAN M’LEOD.
    No. A-1905.
    Application for writ of mandamus.
    Cause dismissed.
    W. L. Coffey, for petitioner.
   PER CURIAM,

Application withdrawn. Cause dismissed.


text:
    In re ARTHUR MONTOUR.
    No. A-1923.
    Application of Arthur Montour for writ of habeas corpus, to be admitted to bail.
    Writ denied.
    Shackelford & Norfleet, and Giddings & Giddings, for petitioner.
    Chas- West., Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Writ denied.


text:
    In re JIM ROGERS.
    No. A-1953.
    Petition of Jim Rogers for writ of habeas corpus, to be admitted to bail.
    Dismissed.
   PER CURIAM,

Petition withdrawn and the cause dismissed.


text:
    In re W. C. SMITH.
    No. A-1976.
    Application of W. C. Smith and Wylie Norman for writ of habeas corpus, to be admitted to bail.
    Bail allowed.

      Watts, Watts & Gallaher, and McAdams & Haskell, for petitioner.
   PER CURIAM.

Order that petitioners be admitted to bail in the sum of one thousand dollars each, to be approved by the clerk of the district court of Wagoner county.


text:
    P. E. NOLL v. STATE.
    No. A-1979.
    Appeal from County Court, Pottawatomie County; Hal Johnson, Judge.
    P. E. Noll, convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Proceedings abated.
    Pitman & Goode, for plaintiff in error.
    R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on an information, which charged, that he did unlawfully keep and maintain a place in which intoxicating liquors were received and kept for the purpose of sale, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the county jail for thirty days and a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars. Judgment and sentence was entered on the 3rd day of March, 1913. Erom this judgment an appeal was perfected. Since the appeal was taken and before the opinion reversing the judgment was handed down he departed this life, as shown by the suggestion 'of the death of the plaintiff in error made by the Attorney General.

It is, therefore, considered and ordered that the proceedings in this prosecution be abated.


text:
    In re JOHN GRAHAM.
    No. A-2023.
    Petition of John Graham for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
    Gibson & Gibson, for petitioner.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The petition is filed on behalf of John Graham, by his mother, Sarah Graham, alleging in substance that her minor son, John Graham, is restrained of his liberty at the Whitaker Orphan Home by D. A. Bennett, superintendent of said home. That the said John Graham is not and was not a delinquent, dependent, or neglected child. On the filing of the petition a rule to show cause why the writ should not issue was ordered. The respondent answered in substance, stating that upon a complaint charging that John Graham was a neglected and dependent child, and that his mother, Sarah Graham, was an unfit person to care for him, S. I. McElhoes, judge of the juvenile court of Comanche county, ordered and adjudged that the said John Graham be committed to the State Orphan Home at Prior Creek, as a dependent child. The court’ being fully advised, denied the writ.


text:
    In re R. GRISSETT et al.
    Nos. A-2105 and A-2106.
    Applications of R. Grissett and Kent Anglin for writs of habeas corpus.
    Writ allowed-
    Boss N. Lillard, and T. E. Robertson, for petitioner.
   PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, R. Grissett and Kent Anglin, represent that they are unlawfully restrained of their liberty by M. C. Binion, sheriff of Oklahoma county in the county jail of said county; that they are held in custody by virtute of a certain warrant alleging that petitioners are necessary and material witnesses in a criminal action; that petitioners are poor persons and for that reason unable to give bond with sureties to appear ao witnesses. On the filing of the petitions writs issued returnable the next day, at which time the respondent filed his answer. Thereupon there was filed an agreed statement of facts as follows:

“That on the 14th day of September, 1913, R. Grissett and Kent Anglin, were arrested in Cleveland, Oklahoma, on a charge of stealing a horse and buggy in Oklahoma county. They were brought to Oklahoma county, and upon their preliminary hearing on the 23rd day of September, 1913, the ease was dismissed upon motion of the county attorney of Oklahoma county. On the day their preliminary hearing was to be hold and before tlie case against them was dismissed they were used as witnesses in the ease of State of Oklahoma v. Dave Myers. After their testimony had been taken in said case, the county attorney asked the committing magistrate to place these two witnesses under bond, requiring a three hundred dollar cash bond. Petitioners were unable to give this bond and were committed to the county jail of Oklahoma county to be held pending the trial of the case of State v.' Myers in the superior court of said county. On the 6th day of October, 1913, a writ of habeas corpus was sued out before the district court of Oklahoma county by petitioners, alleging an illegal and unlawful detention, and after a hearing by Judge Carney on the 7th day of October, 1913, they were released upon their statement to the court that they were poor men, strangers in Oklahoma county, their residence being in Kansas City, and were unable to give bond, but were willing to appear and testify in the superior court at the trial of the foregoing cause. On said 7tii day of October, 1913, after their release by Judge Carney upon an affidavit by the county attorney that said witnesses were necessary and material, they were again arrested by the sheriff and incarcerated in the county jail without a hearing, from which incarceration they sued out a writ of habeas corpus in this court.”

Upon the consideration of the agreed statement of facts, it is our opinion that petitioners are unlawfully restrained of their liberty by the respondent and that they are entitled to a discharge from the imprisonment of which they complain, and they are, therefore, by the judgment of this court, discharged therefrom.


text:
    In re WALTER WILLIAMS.
    No. A-2119.
    Petition of Walter Williams for writ of habeas corpus.
    Cause dismissed.
    TIepburne & Chappell, for petitioner.
   PER CURIAM.

Cause dismissed on motion of petitioner.


text:
    In re JOHN FREMONT et al.
    No. A-2135.
    Petition of John Fremont for writ of habeas corpus, to be admitted to bail.
    Bail allowed.
    F. E. Riddle, for petitioner.
   PER CURIAM.

Application for bail allowed and fixed at five thousand dollars, be and to be approved by the clerk of the district court of Comanche county.


text:
    HARVE WALKER v. STATE.
    No. A-2154.
    Appeal from County Court, Greer County; H. M. Thacker, Judge.
    Harve Walker was convicted of assault and battery, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Wylie Snow, J. A. Minton, and E. M. Stewart, for plaintiff in error.
    S. I. MeElhoes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Harve Walker, was convicted at the October, 1913, term .of the county court of Greer county on a charge of assault and battery, and his punishment fixed at a fine of five dollars. A careful examination of the record and briefs discloses no error sufficient to justify a reversal of the judgment- It is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    In re CHARLES BASHARA.
    No. A-2162.
    Petition of Charles Bashara for writ of habeas corpus, to be let to bail.
    Bail denied.
    Barefoot & Carmichael, Bond & Melton, and F. E. Riddle, for peti-Loner.
    Oscar Simpson, Go. Atty., for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Charles Bashara, represents that he is unlawfully restrained of his liberty and unlawfully imprisoned in the county jail of Grady county by John C. Lewis, sheriff of said county, by virtue of a commitment issued on an examining trial on the charge of murder, holding said petitioner to answer in the district court; that he is entitled to bail pending his trial in said district court, because the proof is not evident or the presumption great. Upon a careful consideration of all the evidence presented in support of the application, it is the opinion of the court that the writ be denied.


text:
    ALLEN DONAHOE v. STATE.
    No. A-2163.
    Appeal from County Court, Murray County; Harry W. Fielding, Judge.
    Allen Donahoe, convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. B. Emanuel, and W. N. Lewis, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and S. I. MeElhoes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction in the county court of Murray county, for the offense of having possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, wherein plaintiff in error was on the 12th day of November, 1913, sentenced in accordance with the verdict to be confined in the county jail for thirty days and to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and costs. ■

There was evidence tending to show possession and unlawful intent.

After a careful examination of the various questions raised, we are satisfied, under well settled rules, sustained and upheld by the decisions of this court, no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error was committed on the trial, nor have we any reason to doubt that the verdict was reached otherwise than upon a fair and full consideration of the evidence by the jury.

The judgment of conviction is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    TOM PORTER v. STATE.
    No. A-2170.
    Appeal from County. Court, Lincoln County; H. M. Jarrett, Judge.
    Tom Porter was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Emery A. Foster, for plaintiff in error.
    ■ Streeter S. Speakman, Co. Atty., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Tom Porter, was convicted at the October, 1913, term of the county court of Lincoln county on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of seventy-five dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days.

The proof in the record conclusively establishes the guilt of the accused. There are no errors of law which are sufficient, in view of the facts disclosed, to warrant a reversal.

The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    A. F. HOLMES v. STATE.
    No. A-2172.
    Appeal from County Court, Comanelie County; I-I. N. Whalin, Judge.
    A. F. Holmes, convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Beversed.
    J. A- Fain, and Stevens & Myers, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and S. I. McElhoes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CTJEIAM.

The plaintiff in error, A. F. Holmes, jointly informed against with Eve Shoemake, was separately tried and convicted upon an information which charged that they did have in their possession eighty-two quarts of beer, and twenty quarts and forty half pints of whisky, with the purpose and intent to sell the same. In pursuance of the verdict he was sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars and to be confined in the county jail for thirty days. An appeal from the judgment was taken by filing in this court on January 19, 1914, a petition in error with case-made. This is a companion case to that of Eve Shoemake. The only evidence tending to connect this defendant with the liquors found was the fact that he owned the property.

The defendant was not there when the liquors were seized. As a witness in his own behalf he testified that, “I am sometimes called Kansas Holmes, I have lived in Comanche county five or six years, down in the big pasture on a farm, I have three farms down there; I know nothing about the liquors seized or nothing about it being there. I did not have control over the house or possession of the place, only that I owned it; it was rented to Eve Shoemake immediately after it was moved on the lot, about eighteen months ago, she has been in possession of it from that time.”

Primarily, the trial court, and, on appeal, this court, must determine whether or not there has been adduced before the jury a sufficient amount of competent evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged.

After a careful examination of the record in this case, we must conclude that if there is any testimony which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of this defendant we have not been able to discover it. The verdict being contrary to the law and the evidence, the judgment will be reversed.


text:
    EVE SHOEMAKE v. STATE.
    No. A-2173.
    Appeal from County Court, Comanche County; H. N. Whalin, Judge.
    Eve Shoemake, convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. A. Fain, and Stevens & Myers, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and S. I. McElhoes, Asst. -Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUBIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Eve Shoemake, jointly informed • against with A. 3?. Holmes, was separately tried and convicted upon an information which charged they did have in their possession eighty-two quarts of beer and twenty quarts and forty half pints of whisky, with the purpose and intent to sell the same. In pursuance of the verdict she was sentenced to pay a fine of three hundred fifty dollars and costs taxed, fifty-six dollars, and to be confined in the county jail for thirty days.

An appeal from the judgment was taken by filing in this court on January 19, 1914, a petition in error with ease-made.

The evidence shows that the liquors were found beneath the floor of a coal house, adjoining a house of ill fame conducted by the plaintiff in error. The defendant as a witness in her own behalf testified that the outhouse where the liquors were found was not in her possession; that it was kept by a negro who rented it from her, paying her three dollars per month. After a careful examination of the record, our conclusion is that the various errors assigned are without merit, and that there can be no doubt of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury. Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.


author: PEB CUBIAM.

text:
    MAY RICHARDS v. STATE.
    No. A-2175.
    Appeal from County Court, Comanche County; ■ H. N. Whalen, Judge.
    May Bichards was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and appeals-
    Beversed.
    J. E. Thomas, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEB CUBIAM.

The plaintiff in error, May Biehards, and Jim Biehards, were jointly charged with selling whisky to one Charley Lem-aster. Upon her separate trial, May Bichards was found guilty and was sentenced to serve a term of sixty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of two hundred fifty dollars.

The testimony in the case was substantially as follows:

Charley Lemaster testified that he went to the house of Jim and May Biehards in the city of Lawton on Saturday night, the 12th of July, and the first time with Baymond Boland; that he asked Mr. and Mrs. Biehards if they had anything to drink:

”Q. When you asked them that, what was said? A. I think she asked Mr. Biehards if we would be all right. I don’t remember whether he said anything or not, anyway they let us have the whisky. Q. How much did you get? A. One-half pint. Q. What did you get the second time you went in there? A. Got a half pint of whisky. Q. From whom did you get it? A. Mr. Biehards. Q. Was the defendant, May Bichards, in the house at that time? A. She was in the front room.”

Cross examination: Q. Is it a fact you all.were at a half dozen places in the East End that night? A. Yes. Q. You visited how many places that night? A. I don’t know how many places. Q. What other places did you buy whisky that night? A. I don’t know.”

Morris Tagne testified tliat he was with Charley Lemaster and a fellow called “Shorty”; that Lemaster and Shorty went into the Richards1 house- Over the defendant's objection he was then permitted to testify that Lemaster and Shorty had a half pint of whisky, and that they said that they got it in there.

As a witness in her own behalf May Richards testified that on the day in question she was at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Barrett, at Richards’ Spur, thirteen miles north of Lawton; that Jim Richards, her husband, was with her; that they drove one of Mr. Lebrecht’s horses; that they gathered about a bushel of plums that day on Mr. Barrett’s place; that they left there that evening after supper, and arrived home about half past nine; she denied that she ever sold whisky.

M. C. Marlow testified that he was a furniture dealer, and made a delivery of furniture to the Richards’ place on the 13th day of July, 1913; that his books show the exact date; that there was no person at home; that a neighbor boy was there when he delivered the furniture.

Mrs. Tom Barrett testified that Mr. and Mrs. Richards arrived at her place about eleven o’clock that morning; that they gathered about a bushel of plums that day and left for home after supper that evening; that they were driving a poor bay horse.

The testimony of the only witness who says May Richards sold the whisky is of very doubtful character. For this reason we think the court erred in permitting his testimony to be bolstered up by the admission of hearsay testimony over the defendant’s objection. The court also gave the definition of reasonable doubt, condemned by this court in Harris v. State, 10 Okla. Or. 417, 137 Pac. 365. For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed, a new trial awarded and the cause remanded.


text:
    LOTTIE TURNER v. STATE.
    No. A. 2177.
    Appeal from County Court, Comanche County; II- N. Whalin, Judge.
    Lottie Turner was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. F. Thomas, and Lewis Hunter, for plaintiff in error.
    R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Lottie Turner, was convicted at the September, 1913, term of the county court of Comanche county on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and her punishment fixed at a fine of five hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of ninety days.

There was no brief filed on behalf of plaintiff in error. Counsel appeared, however, and made an oral argument. The proof shows that on the 23rd day of April, 1913, a search of the premises of plaintiff in error was made; that sixteen pints of whisky and some beer were found. A hole had been sawed in the floor rrnder the linoleum and the whisky fitted into a place under this floor. The deputy sheriff who made this search also testified that he had made many other searches of the samo Eilaee and ’-id found large quantities of intoxicating liquors there.

The place occupied by plaintiff in error was a hotel. The officers also testified that plaintiff in error acted as proprietress of the place; that she accepted search warrants when they were served on her, without any objection or protest, and exercised acts of ownership and control over the premises.

On the date the raid was made, out of which this prosecution grew, plaintiff in error was found in a room with a number of men, with empty glasses containing small amounts of beer and empty beer bottles setting around; and other evidences of drinking having been going on in the room. Other testimony introduced tended to establish the fact that the hotel was a joint. There is no doubt but that the intoxicating liquor in question was kept for the unlawful purpose of sale- We are unable to say that the jury failed to discharge its duty. Under all the facts disclosed we are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


text:
    In re A. WASHMOOD.
    No. A-2188.
    Petition of A. Washmood for writ of habeas corpus, to be let to bail.
    Bail allowed.
    W. I. Cruce, for petitioner.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The petition, filed February 15, 1914, on behalf of A. Washmood, represents that he is illegally and unlawfully restrained of his liberty and confined in the Carter county jail under a charge of murder. That the Hon. Stilwell H. Eussell, district judge, is disqualified, as prior to his election he was employed in the prosecution of the case. That your petitioner is old and infirm, being now seventy years of age, and has been confined for nearly four years, is poor and without funds of any kind; that he has no relatives of means and that the fixing of his bond in any considerable amount would be in effect denying him bail. That this court has on file all the- testimony that can be produced against him and had read and considered the same, he therefore asks the testimony as on file in this court in the ease of A. Wash-mood, plaintiff in error, v. United States, be considered, wherein the judgment of conviction was reversed, and opinion filed November 12, 1913. (Washmood v. U. S., 10 Okla. Cr. 254, 136 Pac. 184.)

Upon a consideration of the petition and the record referred to, it is ordered that petitioner be admitted to bail in the sum of five hundred dollars. Bond to be approved by the clerk of the district court of Carter county.


text:
    In re C. W. MADDOX.
    No. A-2196.
    Petition of C. W. Maddox for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
    Swan C. Burnette, James L. Austin, for petitioner.
    Smith C. Maston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The petitioner, C. W. Maddox, represents that he is restrained of his liberty in Oklahoma City by Doc. Hutcherson, sheriff of Washita county; that lie was by the judgment of the district court of Washita county sentenced to serve a term of forty years in the penitentiary, and from this judgment he appealed to this court. That said district court fixed the supersedeas bond in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, and that he has been unable to give the required bond; that the clerk of the district court issued a commitment upon sajd judgment of conviction, commanding said sheriff of Wasliita county to transport petitioner to the penitentiary, and the said sheriff is now transporting petitioner to the penitentiary; that petitioner should in the absence of his giving a supersedeas bond be confined in the county jail of said county during the pendency of his said appeal before this court; that in issuing said commitment the clerk of said district court acted without warrant of law, and that the said sheriff in transporting petitioner and in attempting to deliver him to the warden of said penitentiary in pursuance of the said commitment, is acting without warrant of law and in violation of your petitioner’s constitutional rights.

On the filing of the petition the writ issued, returnable the next day, at which time the respondent produced in court the petitioner and filed his answer, and the eause was heard at that time. The court being fully advised, ordered that the writ be discharged and'the petitioner be remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Washita county to be delivered by him to the warden of the penitentiary as commanded in said commitment.


text:
    In re E. N. BRYANT.
    No. A-2199.
    Petition of E. N. Bryant for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
    William Harrison, and A. L. Hilpirt, for petitioner.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The petition filed in this court March 2, 1914, on behalf of the said E. N. Bryant, alleged in substance that he is unlawfully restrained of his liberty by one Webb Jones, chief of police of Oklahoma City, und^r and by virtue of a warrant issued by the Governor of Oklahoma upon a requisition issued by the Governor of Mississippi. That said restraint is illegal, because the affidavit upon which the application for requisition was made by the Governor of Mississippi does not charge an offense against the laws of the state of Mississippi, and does not comply with the federal requirements upon which the requisition should be legally honored and allowed, and because said affidavit is false, fraudulent, malicious and made for the purpose of taking your petitioner to the state of Mississippi, not to answer the charge therein sought to be alleged, but for the purpose of getting him within the limits of said state, so that he can be served with civil process and for the purpose of harrassing and annoying your said petitioner.

On the filing of the petition, the writ issued, returnable at two p. m. on said day, at which time the respondent produced in court the X>etitioner and answered. Upon the hearing then and there had, it was ordered that the temporary writ heretofore granted be discharged and the petitioner be remanded to the custody of respondent to be delivered to the extradition agent of the state of Mississippi.


author: BEK CITKIAM.

text:
    HILL STANSILL v. STATE.
    No. A-2204.
    Appeal from County Court, Adair County; John A. Goodall, Judge.
    I-Iill Stansill, convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Keversed.
    E. B. Arnold, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   BEK CITKIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on a charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same and sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars and be confined in the county jail for thirty days. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is the only question to be determined. D. W. C. Duncan testified that he was a deputy sheriff; that he saw the defendant hand a bottle to Henry Turn, and he passed it to George Bowles, each talcing a drink out of tire bottle, and handed it back to the defendant. About this time they saw witness, and. the defendant slipped the bottle into the grass close by. This was all the evidence for the state.

As a witness in his own behalf, I-Iill Stansill testified that he had lived in that country all his life; that he and the complaining witness had been on unfriendly terms for more than a year; that he was with Henry Turn and Will Watt on George Bowles’ place, near Baron Boric, that morning, and they bought a quart of whisky from Charley Terrill, who lives up on the Pea Vine; that Henry Turn paid for the whisky; that he did not take the bottle from his bosom as Duncan testified.

George Bowles testified that he was with Henry Turn and picked the bottle up and took a drink and set it down and started towards his house and met Clint Duncan.

Henry Turn testified that he was present when Hill Stansill was arrested with Clint Duncan; that he and Stansill bought the whisky there from Charley Terrill.

We are of the opinion that the evidence in this case is entirely insufficient to sustain a conviction. In a prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, barter, give away or otherwise furnish, the evidence to be sufficient must show in addition to possession such acts or conduct of the defendant as tend to prove unlawful intention. In our opinion, it would be destroying the presumption in favor of the innocence of the defendant and permit a subversion of the rale which requires establishment of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to allow this conviction to stand. The judgment is, therefore, reversed.


author: PEK CUKIAM.

text:
    In re SILMAN THOMAS.
    No. A-2210.
    Petition of Silman Thomas for writ of habeas corpus, for the purpose of being admitted to bail.
    Bail allowed.
   PEK CUKIAM.

A petition filed on behalf of the said Silman Thomas alleges in substance that he is illegally restrained of his liberty by James Keese, sheriff of Haskell county, that he is held in custody by virtue of a certain commitment issued by the county judge of said county sitting as an examining magistrate, wherein petitioner is charged with the crime of murder, and was held to answer to the district, court. That the Hon. W. H. Brown, judge of the district court, on review of the testimony refused to let petitioner to bail; that the evidence offered in said cause and submitted herewith will show that the proof of guilt is not evident, nor the presumption great. Upon a careful examination of the evidence it is the conclusion of the court that bail should be allowed in the sum of ten thousand dollars, bond to be approved by the clerk of the district court of Haskell county.


text:
    In re D. H. MIDDLETON.
    No. A-2212.
    Petition of D. H. Middleton for writ of habeas corpus. ■
    Cause dismissed.
    N. W. Noffsinger, for petitioner.
   PEE CUEIAM.

Application withdrawn by' leave of court and cause dismissed.


text:
    FRED HILL v. STATE.
    No. A-2216.
    Appeal from County Court, Rogers County; Walter W. Shaw, Judge.
    Pred Hill, convicted of violating the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Bert Van Louven, for plaintiff in error.
    E. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Pred Hill, was convicted of the offense of conveying intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and thirty days confinement in the county jail. January 7, 1914, judgment was rendered in pursuance of the verdict. An appeal was taken from the judgment. No bñef has been filed, and when the case was called for final submission no appearance was made on behalf of plaintiff in error. Whereupon the state moved to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute the appeal. The motion to affirm is sustained and the judgment herein is affirmed.


text:
    LEO HINDS v. STATE.
    No. A-2223.
    Appeal from County Court, Washita County; L. E. Shean. Judge,

      Leo I-Iinds was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Smith, Smith & Smith, for plaintiff in error.
    E. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for'the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Leo Hinds, was convicted at the January, 1913, term of the county court of Washita county on a charge of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor from one place in said county to another place therein, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days.

Upon a careful consideration of the entire record in this ease we are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.

The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    In re EARNEST FENSTERMACHER.
    No. A-2227.
    Petition of .Earnest Eenstermaeher for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The petition filed on behalf of Earnest Fenster-macher alleges in substance that he is illegally restrained of his liberty, and unlawfully imprisoned in the county jail of Caddo county by A. J. Blankenship, sheriff of said county, by virtue of a warrant issued by the Governor of Oklahoma, based upon a requisition from the Governor of South Dakota. That the requisition aforesaid charges petitioner with having broken his parole in the state of South Dakota. That said petitioner was, as he was held to believe by the authorities of South Dakota, paroled without conditions. That at the time of the issuance of said extradition warrant the parole aforesaid had never been revoked. On the filing of the petition the writ issued. The respondent answered as commanded by the writ. Upon the hearing had, the writ was discharged and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Caddo county to be delivered to the extradition agent of South Dakota.


text:
    P. M. VICK v. STATE.
    No. A-2231.
    Appeal from Superior Court; Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, .Judge.
    P. M. Vick, convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Edward Curd, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

On information filed in the superior court of Muskogee county, charging that he did unlawfully convey eighteen gallons of whisky and six quarts of beer, the plaintiff' in error, P. M. Vick, was convicted, and his punishment fixed at sixty days confinement in the county jail and a fine of one hundred fifty dollars. The judgment and sentence was entered December 13, 1913. An appeal was taken by filing in this court on April 9, 1914, a petition in error with case-made.

No authorities are cited to sustain the argument made in support of the errors assigned. Where the state has offered' evidence in support of the material allegations of the information, and no proof is introduced on the part of the defense, a verdict of, guilty is the only verdict which the jury can properly return. The state’s case is completed when the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the intoxicating liquor was conveyed as charged. In our opinion there is absolutely no merit in the errors assigned. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed. Mandate to issue forthwith.


author: PEE CUBIAM..

text:
    In re JOHN C. LINDSAY.
    No. A-2232.
    Petition of John 0. Lindsey for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
    Ben. F. Williams, E. W. Fagan, Allen & Haste, and Thos. Robinett, for petitioner.
    S. P. 'Freeling, Atty. Gen., and Moman Pruitt, for the State.
   PEE CUBIAM..

The petition filed on behalf of the said John C. Lindsay alleges in substance that he is illegally restrained and unlawfully imprisoned in the county jail of Cleveland county by Claud Pick-ard, sheriff of said county. That the cause of said restraint is that petitioner herein is charged with having killed J. Y. Schenck in Murray county. That petitioner was granted a change of venue from Murray county to Cleveland county; that said cause is now pending in the district court of Cleveland county. That petitioner prays that he be admitted to bail; that his bond be fixed in a reasonable amount. On the filing of the petition the writ issued. Despondent answered as commanded by the writ. Upon a hearing had, the writ was discharged and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the respondent.


text:
    HENRY KEISER v. STATE.
    No. A-2236.
    Appeal from District Court, McIntosh County; Preslie B. Cole, Judge.
    Henry Keiser was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor to a miner, and appeals.
    Dismissed.
    Green & Robertson, for plaintiff in error-
    R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen. -for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Henry Keiser, was convicted at the October, 1913, term of the district court of McIntosh county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor to a minor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of five hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail of McIntosh county for a period of thirty days.

The petition in error, with case-made attached, was filed in this court on the 18th day of April, 1914. No briefs have been filed on behalf of plaintiff in error, and no appearance was made for oral argument upon the date the case was assigned for argument and submission in this court. The Attorney General has interposed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the same has not been prosecuted as required by law and the rules of this court. The motion is sustained and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.


text:
    FENDER POLK v. STATE.
    No. A-2238.
    Appeal from County Court, Grady County; N. M. Williams, Judge.
    Fender Polk was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed.
    Holding & Herr, for plaintiff in error.
    R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Fender Polk, was convicted at the January, 1914, term of the county court of Grady county on an information which charged the unlawful furnishing of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days.

The Attorney General has filed the following confession in error in this case:

“In this case the charging part of the information is exeepited to. It reads as follows:
“ ‘That on or about the said day and date and in said county and state, the said Fender Polk, then and there being, did then and there, wilfully and unlawfully furnish and deliver, certain spirituous and intoxicating liquors, to-wit: whisky, to one Dinkey Smith, contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state.'
“This information does not comply with the law of this state as laid down by this court in. the following eases, to-wit: Okla. Cr. 6-492; 9-532; Jenkins v. State, 145 Pac. 500; Finley v. State, 145 Pac. 1107.
“We, therefore, confess error and consent that the cause be reversed by this court.’'’

The confession is sustained and the cause reversed and remanded with directions to grant a new trial.


text:
    In re DAVID ALMERIGO.
    No. A-2239.
    Petition of David Almerigo for writ of habeas corpus.
    No order.
    Moman Pruiett, for petitioner.
   PEE CUEIAM.

This is an application in habeas corpus brought by the petitioner, alleging that he is illegally restrained and imprisoned in the county jail of Coal county by Jesse Phillips, sheriff of said county. That he is held in custody by said sheriff by reason of being charged with the crime of murder of Ben Jones. That he is not guilty of the crime of murder; that the proof is not evident nor the presumption great. Annexed to said petition is a transcript of the testimony taken upon the preliminary examination. Upon the hearing had, bail was fixed in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, to be approved by the clerk of the district court of Coal county. Upon a supplemental application to reduce bail, it is ordered that the amount fixed be reduced to the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars.


text:
    DUTCH WEETE v. STATE.
    No. A-2241.
    Appeal from County Court, Tulsa County; Conn Linn, Judge-
    Dutch Weete, convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Luther James, for plaintiff in error.
    S. P. Ereeling, Atty. Gen., and E. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

This was an indictment returned by the grand jury in the district court of Tulsa county, charging that 1 ‘DutchH Weete did unlawfully sell to one Marvin Shell one glass of whisky. The indictment was certified to the county court where a trial was had, and the defendant found guilty and the punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and confinement in the county jail for thirty days. On the 28th day of February, 1914, judgment 'was rendered. An appeal from the judgment was taken by filing in this court on April 21, 1914; a petition in error with case-made.

The decision of the trial court overruling a plea to its jurisdiction is assigned as error. This contention is without merit. Miles v. State, 11 Okla. Cr-, ante. It is also urged that the 'testimony is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant. Though the record does not make a strong case in favor of the state, yet no defense was made,, and the facts in evidence are undisputed. The sufficiency of the evidence was a question for the jury, and this court will not interfere unless it is apparent that injustice has been done. No error appearing that could affect the merits of the case, the judgment herein is affirmed.


text:
    In re GEO. S. BEST.
    No. A-2242.
    Petition of George S. Best for writ of habeas corpus.
    Writ issued.
    G. E. King, and Geo. E. Bingham, for petitioner.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The petition filed on behalf of the said George S. Best alleges in substance that he is illegally and unlawfully imprisoned in the county jail of Tulsa county by William M. McCullough, sheriff of said county; that he is held in custody by virtue of a certain commitment issued on a preliminary examination before John J. Slack, justice of the peace in and for district No. 4, Tulsa county, upon the charge of obtaining money under false pretenses, wherein he was held to await the action of the superior court of Tulsa county. That said restraint and confinement is without authority of law in that no information, presentment or indictment has been filed against your petitioner, wherein your petitioner has been charged with the commission of a crime. On the filing of the petition the writ was issued and made returnable before the superior court of Tulsa county.