text:
    A. W. GILLESPIE v. STATE.
    No. A-974.
    Opinion Filed May 7, 1912.
    Appeal from Garfield County Court; James B. Cullison, Judge.
    A. W. Gillespie was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Robberts & Curran, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, A. W. Gillespie, was tried at the September, 1910, term of the county court of Garfield county on a charge of keeping and maintaining a place where intoxicating liquors were sold, and his punishment fixed at a fine of five hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six months. The major portion of the testimony introduced in this case involved intoxicating liquor found in the rooms of one Muller, but no connection whatever is shown between the plaintiff in error and Muller, or the rooms and liquor involved. There, is some testimony tending to establish the charge against the plaintiff in error. We have carefully gone over the entire record and are of the opinion that the plaintiff in error did not have that fair and impartial trial guaranteed him by the Constitution. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the county court of Garfield county with direction to grant a new trial.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    PETE FOWLER et al. v. STATE.
    No. A-939.
    Opinion Filed May 7, 1912.
    Appeal from Superior Court, Custer County; J. W. Lawter, Judge.
    Pete Fowler and Bill Franks were convicted of a misdemeanor, and appeal.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Geo. T. Webster, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction for a misdemeanor in the superior court of Custer county. On the 7th day of December, 1911, the Attorney General filed a motion to strike out the ease-made and dismiss the appeal upon the ground that it "was not served upon the county attorney within thirty days from the 17th day of September, 1910, the day on which the superior court of Custer county made the order from which this appeal is attempted to be taken. ’ There has been no response to the motion to dismiss. We take it as confessed. The motion is sustained, and the appeal is hereby dismissed.


text:
    CHAS. OSBORNE v. STATE.
    No. A-1204.
    Opinion Filed May 8, 1912.
    Appeal from Love County Court; R. A. Keller, Judge.
    Chas. Osborne was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Eddleman & Graham, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted at the April, 1911, term of the county court of Love county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The appeal was filed in this court on the 17th day of July, 1911. No-briefs have been filed and no appearance made for oral argument. The Attorney General has interposed a motion to affirm for want of prosecution under rule 4. The motion is sustained, and the judgment of the-trial court affirmed.


text:
    BANTY JONES v. STATE.
    No. A-1227.
    Opinion Filed May 8, 1912.
    Appeal from Jefferson County Court; B. T. Price, Judge.
    Banty Jones was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Eddleman & Graham, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, for th«State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Banty Jones, was convicted at the May, 1911, term of the county court of Jefferson county, held at Cornish in said county, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. We have carefully gone over the record. The assignments are without merit.. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


text:
    N. W. GEER v. STATE.
    No. A-1368.
    Opinion Filed May 8, 1912.
    County Court; John W. Hayson, Judge.
    N. W. Geer was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Judgment modified and affirmed.
    Jennings & Levy, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted at the June, 1911, -term of the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and was sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of six months. Upon the oral argument of this ease counsel urge for reversal errors of law committed by the court in its instructions, and improper arguments of the county attorney. The proof shows that the plaintiff in error was in possession of certain premises in the city of Oklahoma City, and had paid the special "retail liquor dealer’s tax. Intoxicating liquors were found in a room in the building occupied by him, which room he contends was subrented by him to another. The intoxicating liquor involved was found in this room. It further appears that this is the first violation of the prohibitory liquor law of which the accused has been convicted or charged. It is not shown that he ever made any sale. In his testimony he explained the possession of the retail liquor dealer’s license. The jury, however, found against him. But in view of the .facts disclosed by the record, and the irregularities of the trial, • which we can not say are sufficient to justify a reversal of the judgment, we think substantial justice requires a modification of the punishment imposed. The judgment of the trial court is modified to sixty days’ imprisonment in the county jail of Oklahoma county and a fine of fifty dollars and .costs, and as modified the judgment is affirmed.


text:
    WILLIAM FREDERICK v. STATE.
    Nos. A-1373, A-1374.
    Opinion Filed May 8, 1912.
    Craig County Court; S. E. Parks, Judge.
    William Frederick was convicted of violations of the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Clyde MeGary and W. M. Simms, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, William Frederick, was convicted at the July, 1911, term of the county court of Craig county, on two charges of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment in eaeh fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The appeals were filed in this court on September 12, 1911. No briefs have been filed and no appearance made for oral argument. The Attorney General has moved for an affirmation for want of prosecution under rule 4. The motion is sustained, and the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.


text:
    CHARLES WEBB v. STATE.
    No. A-1375.
    Opinion Filed May 8, 1912.
    Appeal from Craig County Court.; S. F. Parks, Judge.
    Webb was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.

      James S. Davenport, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for' the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Charles Webb, was convicted at the April, 1911, term of the county court of Craig county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The appeal was filed in this court on the 12th day of September, 1911. No briefs have been filed and no appearance made for oral argument. The Attorney General has moved for an affirmation for want of prosecution under rule 4. The motion is Sustained, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


text:
    L. ARMSTRONG v. STATE.
    No. A-1400.
    Opinion Filed May 9, 1912.
    Appeal from Tulsa County Court; N. J. Gubser, Judge.
    L. Armstrong was convieted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, L. Armstrong, was convieted in the county court of Tulsa county on an information which charged the unlawful sale of whisky, and sentenced to serve a term of six months in the county jail and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars, and in the default of the payment of the same to be further confined until such fine is satisfied as by law provided. No brief had been filed, and no appearance made on behalf of the defendant when the case was called for final submission on the regular assignment for this term. Por this reason the Attorney General has moved to dismiss the appeal or affirm. The motion to affirm is sustained. The judgment of the county court of Tulsa county is therefore affirmed and the ease remanded forthwith with direction to enforce its judgment therein.


text:
    W. J. WILLIAMS v. STATE.
    No. A-1402.
    Opinion Filed May 9, 1912.
    Appeal from Tulsa County Court; N. J. Gubser, Judge.
    W. J. Williams was convieted of a violation of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Davidson & Williams, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, W. J. Williams, was convieted on an information which charged the unlawful sale of a half-pint of whisky to W. P. Benge. June 21, 1911, judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury and the plaintiff in error was sentenced to serve a term of ninety days in the county jail and to pay a fine of one hundred and fifty dollars, and in default of the payment of the same to be further confined until such fine is satisfied as by law provided. Prom the judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court on September 25, 1911, petition in error with case-made. But two witnesses testified in this case. W. P. Benge as a witness for the state testified that on the day alleged in the information he bought a half-pint of whisky from the defendant Williams and paid him fifty cents for it in a pool hall in the town of Skiatook, Tulsa county. The' defendant took the stand on his own behalf and testified that he was working in a pool hall and also running a cold drink stand, and that he did not remember seeing Benge that day and did not sell him any whisky on that day. We have carefully examined the record and our conclusion is that there is no merit in the assignments of error. The defendant had a fair and impartial trial.1 The instructions given fairly stated the law of the ease. Perceiving no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment of the county eourt of Tulsa county is affirmed.


author: PEE CUEIAM.

text:
    CHAS. STUEBLE v. STATE.
    No. A-1882.
    Opinion Filed May 9, 1912.
    Appeal from Custer County Court;
    J. C. MeKnight, Judge.
    Chas. Stueble was convicted of a' violation of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Webster & Lackey, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law and was, on July 29, 1911, sentenced to serve a term of ninety days in the county jail and to pay a fine of one hundred and fifty dollars, and in the default of the payment of said fine the-same to be satisfied by further confinement as by law provided. An' appeal was taken by filing in this court, September 15, 1911, a petition in error and partial transcript containing certified copies of the information, the verdict, judgment and sentence and a copy of the page of the appearance docket. Two assignments of error are presented in the brief. First, that the eourt was without jurisdiction to try the case in that the defendant was not brought to trial at the next term of the court in which the information was triable after it was presented, and second, that the verdict does not give the eourt authority to render judgment for imprisonment for failure to pay the fine. The first question presented cannot be reviewed upon the record before us for the reason that application for continuance and the rulings thereon do not constitute a part of the record proper which can be brought to this eourt for review by transcript. The other assignment is without merit. Section 6917 (Comp. Laws 1909) of Procedure Criminal provides:

“A judgment that the defendant pay a fine may also direct that he be imprisoned until the fine is satisfied, specifying the extent of the imprisonment, which cannot exceed one day for every two dollars of the fine.”

This provision leaves it discretionary with the trial eourt to adjudge imprisonment for nonpayment of the fine, not to exceed one day for each two dollars thereof. Where the judgment and sentence does not so recite, then the fine can only be collected as a money judgment rendered in a civil action.

The appeal being without merit, the judgment of the county court of Custer county is affirmed.


author: PEE CURIAM.

text:
    HENRY HAMPTON v. STATE.
    No. A-1407.
    Opinion Filed May 9, 1912.
    Appeal from Hughes County Court; P. W. Gardner, Judge.
    Henry Hampton was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Eeversed.
    J. Boss Bailey, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county eourt of Hughes county on an information which charged the furnishing- of intoxicating liquor to one Wm. DeLoaeh. July 29, 1911. he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict of the jury to serve a term of sixty days in the county jail' and to pay a fine of one hundred dollars. The information is insufficient to charge the offense of unlawfully furnishing intoxicating liquor, and it is assigned as error that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence and the law. Upon an examination of the evidence we are convinced that the assignment is well taken. The proof on the part of prosecution consists of the testimony of one witness, Wm. DeLoaeh, who testified that he was acquainted with the defendant seven or eight years, met him at Holdenville on the day charged in the indictment. He was then asked if he had any personal transaction with the defendant at that time, and answered that he did not. He was then asked if he had any conversation with the defendant about whisky, and answered that he did not particularly have any conversation with him, but Ed Sumner, who was with him, asked defendant if he had any whisky, and defendant said that he did not have any. That.Sumner then told him that witness was sick and needed some whisky, and the defendant said that he could get some in a back room of a pool hall. Witness testified that he went to the back room and a man was standing there and told him where to find a pint of whisky. The defendant testified in his own behalf substantially the same as the witness for the state; that DeLoaeh and Sumner met him on the street; that Sumner said that DeLoaeh was sick and needed some whisky and he told him that he could get some whisky from a man in the back end of a pool hall; that he had no whisky there and no interest in any wThisky that might be there and did not know whether he secured any whisky there or not. We are of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to show the commission of the offense attempted to be charged.

The judgment of the county court of Hughes county is therefore reversed.


author: PER'CURIAM.

text:
    ELLIS RUMPH v. STATE.
    No. A-1372.
    Opinion Filed May 8, 1912.
    Appeal from Sequoyah County Court; W. N. Littlejohn, Judge.
    Ellis Rumph was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Moore & MeNabb, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. for the State.
   PER'CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Ellis Rumph, was convicted in the county court of Sequoyah county on an information which charged him with a violation of the prohibition law, by unlawfully selling one pint of whisky to Mose Howard. July 13, 1910, the defendant was sentenced to serve a term of one hundred and ten days in the county jail and to pay a fine, of three hundred dollars, and in default of the payment of said fine that he stand committed until the same is satisfied as by law provided. Prom the judgment the defendant appealed by filing in this court, September 12, 1911, a petition in error with case-made attached. The facts briefly stated are as follows: The defendant conducted a restaurant and cold drink stand in the town of Yian, Sequoyah county; back of his place of business he had a barn. On the day alleged in the information Mose Howard went there with Hillary Bonds, and the latter waited outside while Howard went in for a bottle of whisky. Bonds had given Howard a dollar to pay for the whisky. Bonds testified he bought the whisky of the defendant for Howard. Howard was arrested for selling the whisky, but was not prosecuted. In the course of the trial it developed that large quantities of liquor were kept on the defendant’s place; that on a search warrant two or three barrels of beer, a barrel of bottled whisky and some gin were found on the premises. Some in the barn and some in the house.

The defendant, testifying on his own behalf, by way of explanation said that a man named Sprose was a manager of a club and ordered the whisky and beer, and that he, defendant, and others had an interest in it. The petition contains numerous assignments of error. From a careful examination of the record we are convinced that the appeal in this case is destitute of merit, and it would serve no useful purpose to review the assignments.

The judgment of the county court of Sequoyah county is therefore affirmed and the cause remanded thereto with directions to enforce its judgment and sentence therein.


text:
    R. H. MILES v. STATE.
    No. A-1401.
    Opinion Filed May 8, 1912.
    Appeal from Tulsa County Court; N. J. G-ubser, Judge.
    E. H. Miles was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Eeversed.
    Davidson & Williams, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, E. H. Miles, was convicted on an information which charged the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors with the intent of violating provisions of the prohibition law. June 30, 1911, he was sentenced to serve a term of ninety days in the county jail and to pay a fine of two hundred dollars. To reverse this judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court, September 25, 1911, petition in error with case-made. It is contended that the court erred in-refusing to give peremptory instructions to acquit the defendant, and that the verdict and judgment are contrary to the evidence and the law. Th'e proof on the part of the prosecution consisted of the testimony of two deputy sheriffs of Tulsa - county, in substance as follows: That on or about the 11th day of April they went to Sperry, Tulsa county, to serve a search- warrant, calling for a search of the defendant’s premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there was intoxicating liquors in the defendant’s possession; that they found in a room of the house occupied by the defendant about a barrel of beer and four or five gallons of whiskv. The defendant demurred to the evidence and moved the court to direct a verdict of acquittal, which was overruled and exception allowed. The defendant took the stand on his own behalf and testified in substance that the intoxicating liquors found by the deputy sheriff belonged to him and consisted of three or four gallons of whisky and a part of a barrel of beer; that the place was his home where he lived with his family and he had the whiskey for his own use; that the beer was for his daughter-in-law who was there sick witty consumption, and had been prescribed for her by her physician. He further testified that he did not have the whisky there for any purpose other than for his own use, and that he did not have the beer there for any purpose other than the use of his sick daughter-in-law. This was all the evidence in the case. The mere naked presumption, founded on the .fact of possession, standing alone, is insufficient to support a conviction on a charge of this kind. It is said by this court in numerous cases that the rule declared by justice and reason requires that the fact of criminal intent be proved and not presumed. Another rule which is approved by all thinking and just men requires that guilt should flow naturally and easily from the facts proved, and be consistent with all the facts. There was no proof of the payment of the special tax required of liquor dealers by the United States, the payment of which, under the provisions of the prohibition law (section 4181, Comp. Laws 1909), shall constitute prima facie evidence of the intention to violate the provisions of the act. The criminal intent involved in the commission of the offense charged is the intent to sell, barter, or furnish contrary to law, and in order to convict, where there is no proof of payment by the defendant of the special tax required of liquor dealers of the United States, there must be evidence, either positive or presumptive, amounting to proof of such unlawful intent. For the reasons stated the judgment is reversed.


text:
    CHAS. STUEBLE v. STATE.
    No. A-1364.
    Opinion Filed May 8, 1912.
    Appeal from Custer County Court; J. C. McKnight, Judge.
    Chas. Stueble -was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Webster & Lackey, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Chas. Stueble, was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law and was, on July 17, 1911, sentenced to serve a term of one hundred twenty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, and in default of the payment of said fine the same be satisfied by further confinement as by law provided. An appeal was taken by filing in this court, on. September 11, 1911, a petition in error with a partial transcript. The only assignment of error is that the court was without authority to give judgment for imprisonment for the nonpayment of said fine. The appeal is destitute of merit and is therefore affirmed and the cause remanded to the county court of Custer county with direction to enforce its judgment and sentence therein.


text:
    CAM HORNBECK v. STATE.
    No. A-1226.
    Opinion Filed May 8, 1912.
    Appeal from Love County Court; E. A. Keller, Judge.
    Cam Hornbeek was convicted of haying possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, and appeals.
    Eeversed and remanded.
    Eddleman & Graham, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Cam Hornbeek, was convicted in the county court of Love county on an information which charged the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with the intent to violate the prohibition law by unlawfully selling the same. In accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and pay a fine of fifty dollars. From the judgment he appealed by filing in this court June 29, 1911, petition in error with ease-made. Of the various assignments of error it is only necessary to notice the one that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence. From a careful examination of the record we are convinced that the evidence is wholly insufficient to sustain a conviction. It was held by this court in the ease of Rice v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 68, 113 Pac. 207, that mere possession of intoxicating liquors without proof of the purpose for which it was held is insufficient to sustain a conviction of one charged with having possession with intent to violate the prohibition law. There was no evidence in this case of the defendant’s intent to violate the prohibition law by selling the intoxicating liquor shipped to him from Ft. Worth, which was seized about the time of delivery. A mere naked presumption founded on the fact of possession standing alone is insufficient to support a conviction. The rule declared by justice and reason requires that the fact of criminal intent be proved and not presumed. The evidence should be of such a character as to overcome prima facie the presumption of innocence. If the evidence raises a mere suspicion, or, admitting all it tends to prove, the defendant’s guilt is left doubtful or dependent upon mere supposition, surmise, or conjecture, the court should advise the jury to acquit the defendant. Alexander v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 478, 106 Pac. 988; Rice v. State, 5 Okla. Or. 68, 113 Pac. 207; McCarthy v. State, 6 Okla. Or. 483, 119 Pac. 1020. This court has repeatedly held that persons residing in this state have a right to receive interstate shipments for their own use, and while an unusual quantity might be a circumstance to be considered against a defendant on a charge of this kind, that of itself is insufficient to warrant a conviction. The proof must go further and establish the unlawful intent. For the reason stated the judgment is reversed.


text:
    TOM WRIGHT v. STATE.
    No. A-1391.
    Opinion Filed May 9, 1912.
    Appeal from Seminole County Court; T. S. Cobb, Judge.
    Tom Wright was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Crump, Fowler & Skinner, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Tom Wright, was convicted at the April, 1911, term of the county court of Seminole 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 fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. We have carefully examined the record, and find no errors prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff! in error. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    D. W. ELLINGTON v. STATE.
    No. A-1439.
    Opinion Filed May 16, 1912.
    Appeal from Blaine County Court; George W. Ferguson, Judge.
    D. W. Ellington was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Seymour Foose, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen. for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, D. W. Ellington, was convicted in the county court of Blaine county on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and on the 24th day of July, 1911, was adjudged to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of six months. Upon a careful examination of the record we find no error sufficient to justify a reversal of the. judgment. There are some irregularities in the trial, but they cannot be said to be prejudicial. The accused admitted possession of the intoxicating liquor, and the jury were entirely justified in concluding that he had been selling the same, and that the liquors he had at the time and. place charged were for the purpose of unlawful sale. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


text:
    J. R. McGARRAH v. STATE.
    No. A-1436.
    Opinion Filed May 16, 1912.
    Appeal from Oklahoma County Court; John W. Hayson, Judge.
    J. B. McGarrah was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals,
    Affirmed.
    Pruiett & Sniggs, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, J. B. McGarrah, was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county on the 21st day of June, 1911, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and on the 10th day of July adjudged to pay a fine of two hundred dollars and be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of thirty days. 'No prejudicial error appearing from the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


author: PEB CUBIAM.

text:
    NELSON JELTS v. STATE.
    No. A-1404.
    Opinion Filed May 16, 1912.
    Appeal from Pottawatomie County Court; Boss F. Lockridge, Judge.
    Nelson Jelts was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Beversed.
    G. A. Outcelt, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, for the State.
   PEB CUBIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Nelson Jelts, was convicted at the July, 1911, term of the county court of Pottawatomie county on a charge of having unlawful possession of whisky with the intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of ninety days and a fine of one hundred fifty dollars. It appears from the record that a number of raids had been made by the officers on the place of business of the accused, who is a negro, but no intoxicating liquors were found. Upon the date this offense is alleged to have been committed, William Davis, a police officer in Shawnee, went to the place about daylight and searched the premises, but found nothing. He was informed by another negro named Harris that he would find whisky at a certain spot in the rear of the premises occupied by the accused. Following the directions of the negro Harris, a box containing intoxicating liquors was found a short distance in the rear of the accused’s place on the Bock Island right-of-wav, covered up with straw, cinders, and other materials. It appears that Harris and the accused were enemies. At the time the whisky was found, prosecuting witness Davis testified that the accused came out and offered him fifty dollars to leave the whisky and say nothing about finding it. The accused denied this statement and said that he told the officer that he wouldn’t have had it found there for fifty dollars, that it was not his, and that he knew nothing about it. Counsel for the accused offered to show by deputy sheriff Tilghman, while he was on the stand as a witness for the accused, that the negro Harris had been to him and offered to "put up a job” on Nelson Jelts, in order that Jelts might be arT rested and convicted for violating the prohibitory law, stating that he would give fifty dollars to have the transaction carried out; that the witness Tile-liman refused to have anvtliing to do with such a transaction; and that Harris then stated that he would get the. complaining witness to help him out; that this Harris was the same party who pointed out the liquor to the prosecuting witness Davis. Counsel further offered to show by Louis Smith .that the same Harris told him that he had put up a job on Neis Jelts; that he had put some whisky at the place pointed out for the purpose of catching the accused and having him charged with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. The state objected to the introduction of this testimony. The objection was sustained, and exceptions properly saved. When the accused was on the stand, the assistant county attorney, on cross-examination, was permitted to indulge in the following character of examination:

“Q. Now, you had paid a fine over in the city court in Shawnee? (Defendant objects as irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. Objections overruled by the court, to which ruling of the court the defendant excepted.) A. No, sir. Q. Did you pay any fines there for gambling and bootlegging? A. No, sir. Q. Did you pay a fine for gambling? A. No, sir. Q. How many fines have you paid to the city court in Shawnee? A. I never paid any. Q. Have you paid a hundred? Á. Havo I paid a hundred? Q. Yes, sir. A. I don’t think so. Q. How many have you paid? (Defendant objects as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. Objections were overruled by the .court, to which ruling of the court the defendant excepted.) A. No, sir. Q. I will ask you if you know anything about a system you joined to plead guilty regularly and pay a fine? A. I never joined any system. Q. How many fines have you paid then? (Defendant objects as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. Objections were overruled by the court, to which ruling of the court the defendant excepted.) Q. Did you pay as many as fifty? A. No, sir. Q. As many as twenty-five? A. No, sir. Q. Did you pay as many as a dozen? A. I don’t know anything about what you are talking about. Q. Did you pay a fine for gambling? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever pay a fine? A. I have paid a fine, yes, sir. Q. How many have you paid from statehood up to the present time? A. How many fines have I paid? Q. Yres. A. I don’t know, sir. Q. You paid a fine for running a gambling house at the place we are talking about? A. No, sir: Q. You did not pay a fine for that? A. No, sir. Q. You paid a fine for gambling in there? A. No, sir, I never did. Q. You say you never did buy retail liquor license? A. No, sir. Q. I will ask you if it isn’t a fact that during the month of April — April 16th — 1909, if you took out a federal liquor license, as a requirement of retail liquor dealers in the city of Shawnee, running to July, 1909, and pay twenty-five dollars for it? A. No, sir. Q. That is not a fact? A No, sir; I didn’t pay no twenty-five dollars. Q. You testified in Maben’s ease? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Maben was prosecuted for bribery? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you testify for the state or the defendant? A. The state had me. Q. You testified that you had been bootlegging? A. No, sir. Q. Didn’t you testify that you had been paying the officers for the privilege of selling whisky? A. No sir.”

There is other prejudicial cross-examination disclosed by the record. This court has always been exceedingly liberal with the prosecuting attorneys of this state, and endeavors always to uphold every proper conviction brought here on appeal. But a prosecuting attorney should not permit his high office to be prostituted in the interest of malice or oppression. He should not be guilty of indulging in the character of examination disclosed by this record. It does not make anv difference how guilty a man is, he ought to be tried in a fair and impartial manner, and according to law. Prosecuting attorneys are not charged with the duty of securing convictions by improper methods. Thev should see that substantial justice is meted out in the manner provided by law, and no conviction should be sought or demanded unless, it can be had by compliance with the safeguards and rules established to prevent oppression. A conviction had under the circumstances disclosed by the record under consideration cannot be sustained. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to the trial court to grant a new trial according to law.


text:
    ELMER DEERE v. STATE.
    No. A-1399.
    Opinion Filed May 16, 1912.
    Appeal from Tulsa County Court; N. J. Gubser, Judge.
    Elmer Deere was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed.
    Davidson & Williams, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Elmer Deere, was convicted in June, 1911, 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 fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of ninety days. In the record the proof establishes the possession of beer at the residence of the accused. There is no other competent evidence in the record tending to establish the intent. The accused' in his own behalf testified that the beer was an interstate shipment for his own personal use kept in his home. This court has so often held that it is as essential for intent to be established by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as it is to establish the possession that we do not feel called upon to discuss the question at length here. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to the court below to grant a new trial.


author: PER CURlAM.

text:
    JAKE REINERT v. STATE.
    No. A-1328.
    Opinion Filed May 16, 1912.
    Appeal from Oklahoma County Court; John W. Hayson, Judge.
    Jake Reinert was convicted, of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Lee P. Wilson and E. G. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Watson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURlAM.

Jake Reinert, plaintiff in error, was convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same, and was on the 22nd day of May, 1911, sentenced in accordance with the verdict of the jury to serve a term of six months in the county jail, and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and stand committed until such fine is satisfied according to law. The proof on the part of the prosecution shows that defendant was found in possession of intoxicating liquors at his place of business, 125 West California street, Oklahoma City, and proof of the payment by the defendant of. the special tax required of retail liquor dealers by the United States, by a certified copy, of the records of the collector of internal revenue for the district of Oklahoma, was made. There was no evidence offered on the part of the defendant. Prom an examination of the record and transcript our conclusion is that the appeal in this-case is wholly destitute of merit. The judgment of the ncounty court of Oklahoma county is therefore affirmed and the cause remanded thereto forthwith with direction to enforce its judgment and sentence.


text:
    DOCK ISBELL et al. v. STATE.
    No. A-1067.
    Opinion Filed May 18, 1912.
    Appeal from Oraig County Court; S. F. Parks, Judge.
    Dock Isbell and Clay Tittle were convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeal.
    Reversed.
    James S. Davenport, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. Caldwell, Co. Atty., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs in error were tried and convicted on an information which jointly charged the unlawful conveyance of intoxicating liquor from one place to another. In accordance with the verdict of the jury, on February 6, 1911, judgment and sentence in accordance with the verdict that each of said defendants serve a term of sixty days in the county jail and pay a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars was entered. From the judgment and an order overruling their motion for a new trial the defendants appealed by filing in this court on March 16, 1911, their petition in error with case-made attached. Numerous assignments of error are presented by the petition and argued in the brief. After a careful examination of the record, the conclusion of the court is that the judgment in this case can not be permitted to stand for the sufficient reason, without considering other assignments of error apparently well taken, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. The proof on the part of the state tends to show the following facts: Jacob Smith testified that he was a deputy - constable, seeing the defendants in a carriage on the streets of Vinita, Isbell driving and Tittle in the back part; he went over to them and reached into the carriage to get a sack therein; that they drove off, and when they started he fell off and pulled his gun and shot a couple of times. That when they drove away Tittle threw a package out on the ground and witness went there with Robert Cox and picked up some broken bottles in a paper sack, that whisky was running out of it, and that he did not have a warrant for the arrest of the defendants. Robert Cox testified that the paper sack smelt like whisky when they picked it up. Three or four witnesses testified to seeing the prosecuting witness Smith shoot a couple of times when the defendants drove off. But they did not see the paper sack thrown from the carriage. The shooting by the prosecuting witness in this case was without justification in any way. Officers of the law should know and understand that they have no authority to use fire arms in making arrests for misdemeanors, unless the offender resists the arresting officer. Assuming that the paper sack contained whisky, the evidence leaves it as a matter of conjecture as to which one of the defendants conveyed it. The testimony and conduct of the prosecuting witness fails to show the commission of the offense charged with that certainty and satisfaction that justifies an affirmance of the judgment, and it is therefore reversed.


text:
    N. H. LANGLEY v. STATE.
    No. A-1068.
    Opinion Filed May 18, 1912.
    Appeal from Craig County Court; S. F. Parks, Judge.
    N. H. Langley was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    James S. Davenport, for plaintiff in error. *
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. Caldwell, Co. Atty., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Tlie plaintiff in error was tried and convicted and sentenced in accordance with the verdict to serve a term of six months in the county jail and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars, on an information which charged the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with the intention of selling, bartering and furnishing the same in violation of law. The judgment and sentence was entered February 6, 1911. The proof on the part of the state in substance is to the effect that in serving a search warrant on February 6, 1910, against the defendant’s place of business, a pool hall in the town of Big Cabin, there was found in his possesion at his pool hall and in his smokehouse some beer and a drink called Beve, and a trunk full of whisky and four barrels of whisky. Also proof of the payment by the defendant of the special tax required of retail liquor dealers by the United States,’ covering the fiscal year from July, 1909, to July, 1910. There was no evidence offered on behalf of the defendant. The petition contains twenty-three assignments of error. The evidence in this case being conclusive of the guilt of the defendant of the offense charged, this court will not take the time to review the assignments of error further than to say that on the record before us the defendant had a fair trial and the verdict and judgment has our unqualified approval. The judgment of the county court of Craig county is affirmed and the cause remanded thereto forthwith, with direction to enforce its judgment and sentence therein.


text:
    RALPH HAWKINS v. STATE.
    No. A-1451.
    Opinion Filed June 1, 1912.
    Appeal from Blaine County Court; Geo. W. Ferguson, Judge.
    Ralph Hawkins was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed.
    I. H. Lookabaugh, for appellant.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

In this ease the appellant was convicted for having whisky and beer in his possession with intent to sell the same. The attorney general confesses that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, as there is no proof that appellant intended to sell or otherwise dispose of the whisky and beer found in his possession. We have carefully read every word of the evidence, and find that the confession of error was properly made. The judgment of the lower eourt is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.


text:
    SETH LITTLE v. STATE.
    No. A-1168.
    Opinion Filed June 6, 1912.
    Appeal from Jefferson County Court; B. T. Price, Judge.
    Seth Little was convicted of a misdemeanor, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Bridges & Vertrees and C. A. McBrian, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Seth Little, was convicted in the county court of Jefferson county on a charge of pointing a pistol unlawfully at W. L. Peters, and his punishment fixed' at a fine of five hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six months. Judgment was pronounced on the 11th day of April, 1911. The appeal was filed in this eourt on the 31st day of May, 1911. No briefs have been filed, and no appearance made for oral argument. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for want of prosecution^


author: PEE OTJEIAM.

text:
    In re MIKE ZONONE.

      No. A-1677.
    Opinion Filed June 6, 1912.
    Petition for writ of habeas corpus from Pittsburg county by .Zonone.
    Dismissed.
    Pruiett & Sniggs, for petitioner.
    Smith O. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE OTJEIAM.

The petitioner being confined in the at McAlester on a judgment rendered against him for murder, applied for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his discharge from such imprisonment, upon the ground that such judgment was void. After the case was argued and submitted, counsel for petitioner have requested that they be permitted to dismiss the application for the writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. It is therefore ordered that all proceedings in said cause be dismissed without prejudice to petitioner.


text:
    CHARLES BROWN v. STATE. CARL OELKE v. STATE.

      No. A-1455.

    No. A-1456.
    Opinion Filed June 6, 1912.
    Appeals from Canadian County Court; W. A. Maurer, Judge.
    Charles Brown and Carl Oelke were convicted of violating the pro- ' kibitory law, and appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE OTJEIAM.

The Charles was the county court of Canadian county at the July, 1911, term for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of five hundred dollars and six months’ confinement in the county jail. The appellant, Carl Oelke, was found' guilty in the county court of Canadian county at the July, 1911, term of a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of one hundred dollars and thirty days’ confinement in the county jail. An appeal was prosecuted in each of these two causes, but counsel for appellants have never made any appearance in this court or filed a brief in either of said causes. Therefore the judgment of the lower court in each of said causes is affirmed for want of prosecution of said appeals.


author: FURMAN, P. J.

text:
    GEORGE W. ROZZELE v. STATE.
    No. A-1471.
    Opinion Filed June 8, 1912.
    Appeal from LePlore County Court; P. C. Bolger, Judge.
    George W. Eozzelle was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Tom W. Neal, for appellant.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   FURMAN, P. J.

On the 10th day of May, 1911, judgment was rendered against appellant in the county court of LePlore county for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of fifty dollars and sixty days’ confinement in the county jail. Appellant did not perfect his appeal by filing a transcript of the record in this court until the 8th day of November, 1911, which was long after the time allowed by law for'perfecting such appeal. This court therefore has not acquired jurisdiction of this cause and the appeal is dismissed.

ARMSTRONG and DOYLE, JJ., concur.


text:
    HENRY SLOAN v. STATE.
    No. A-1362.
    Opinion Filed June 8, 1912.
    Appeal from Oklahoma County Court; John W. Hayson, Judge.
    Henry Sloan was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

At the January, 1911, term of the county court of Oklahoma county the appellant was convicted for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of five hundred dollars and-six months’ confinement in the county jail, from which judgment appellant prosecuted an appeal, but no appearance has been made and no brief has been filed in this court on behalf of appellant. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed for want, of prosecution of said appeal.


text:
    HENRY STEIL v. STATE.
    No. A-1088.
    Opinion Filed June 8, 1912.
    Appeal from Blaine County Court; Geo. W. Eerguson, Judge.
    Henry Steil was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    I. H. Lookabaugh, for appellant.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

On the 31st day of December, 1910, judgment was rendered against appellant for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law and his punishment was assessed at a fine of one hundred dollars and thirty days’ confinement in the county jail. No time was fixed by the trial court in its judgment within which the ease-made was to be served. After the thirty days provided by law for serving a case-made had expired, the trial court attempted to extend the time for serving the case-made, but this cannot legally be done. The case-made was not served until the 4th day of March, and as no legal order was made extending the time within which the case-made should be served beyond the thirty days allowed by law, the case-made must be stricken from the record. We find no error in the record. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.


text:
    GEORGE COLLINS v. STATE.
    No. A-1152.
    Opinion Filed June 15, 1912.
    Appeal from Pawnee County Court; Ered S. Liscum, Judge.
    George Collins was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Wrightsman, Bush & Murry, for appellant.
    Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law and his punishment was assessed at a fine of three hundred dollars and thirty days’ confinement in the county jail. The evidence in this case is direct as to the guilt of appellant. All of the questions of law presented by counsel in their brief have been previously decided adversely to their contention. We therefore do not deem it necessary to discuss them again. The judgment of the lower court is in all things affirmed.


text:
    HOUSTON BRICE v. STATE.
    No. A-1189.
    Opinion Filed June 15, 1912.
    Appeal from Craig County Court; S. F. Parks, Judge.
    Appellant was convicted for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of fifty dollars and thirty days’ confinement in the county jail. Appealed.
    Affirmed.
    James S. Davenport, for appellant.
    Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., and C. Caldwell, Co. Atty., for the State.
   FURMAN, P. J.

This is a plain case of unlawfully conveying whisky. Every question of law presented in the brief of counsel for appellant has been decided adversely to the contentions therein made. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss them again. If lawyers will take the trouble to keep themselves informed as to the opinions of this court they will save much time, trouble and expense to themselves and clients and refrain from appealing eases which have not the shadow of a chance of being reversed. The judgment of tlio lower court is therefore in all things affirmed.

ARMSTRONG and DOYLE, JJ., concur.


text:
    J. J. PUTMAN v. STATE.
    No. A-1221.
    Opinion Filed June 15, 1912.
    Appeal from Washita County Court; T. R. Sliean, Judge.
    J. J. Putman was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Jones & Bashore, for appellant.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and his punishment was assessed at one hundred and eighty days’ confinement in the county jail and a fine of five hundred dollars. We think that the evidence introduced by the state sustains the verdict of the jury. It is their province to settle all conflicts in the evidence. The questions of law presented have repeatedly been decided adversely to the contention of counsel. The judgment of the lower court is therefore in all things affirmed.


text:
    C. H. JENKINS v. STATE.
    No. A-1080.
    Opinion Filed June 15, 1912.
    Appeal from Craig County Court; S. F. Parks, Judge.
    James S. Davenport, for appellant.
    Smith G. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   Appellant was charged with a violation of the prohibitory liquor law. He entered a plea of guilty and his punishment was assessed by the court at a fine of two hundred dollars and thirty days’ confinement in the county jail. Appealed. Affirmed.


text:
    M. V. McDANIELS v. STATE.
    No. A-1081.
    Appeal from Craig County Court; S. E. Parks, Judge.
    Appellant was indicted for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law. He entered a jflea of guilty and his punishment was assessed by the court at a fine of two hundred dollars and thirtys days’ confinement in the county jail.
    Appealed. Affirmed.

      James S. Davenport, for appellant.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   FURMAN, P. J.

All the questions raised in the' brief of counsel for appellants have already been decided adversely to the contentions therein made. It is therefore unnecessary for us to discuss them now. The judgment of the lower court in each of the above numbered and ■entitled causes is affirmed.

ABMSTBONG and DOYLE, JJ., concur.


text:
    BLUNT MARTIN v. STATE.
    No. A-1063.
    Opinion Filed June 15, 1912.
    Appeal from Craig County Court; S. P. Parks, Judge.
   Appellant was convicted in the county court of Craig county for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of four hundred dollars and one hundred and eighty days’ con finement in the county jail. Appealed. Affirmed.


text:
    BLUNT MARTIN v. STATE.
    No. A-1064.
    Appeal from Craig County Court; S. P. Parks, Judge-
    Appellant was convicted in the county court of Craig county fof a violation of the prohibitory liquor law and his punishment was assessed at a fine of four hundred dollars and one hundred and eighty days’ confinement in the county jail.
    Appealed. Affirmed.
    James S. Davenport, for appellant.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   FURMAN, P. J.

Upon the trial of these cases the court among ■other things instructed the jury as follows:

"If the jury believe from the evidence, that any witness has willfully testified falsely to any material fact or statement of facts in this ■case, you are at liberty to disregard the whole of such witnesses’ testimony except in so far as the same may be corroborated by other creditable witnesses or creditable evidence.”

This instruction should not have been given in this form. See Henry v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 430. But there are two reasons why this Instruction is not reversible error in these cases. Pirst, the record fails to show that any exception was reserved to this instruction when given and the error which it contains is not fundamental. Seeond, the guilt ■of the appellant-iu both of said eases is overwhelmingly and conclusively proven by the testimony. Upon the entire records appellant is not only guilty of these offenses, but he is a hardened criminal and. a confirmed bootlegger. The verdict of the jury in both eases is right. Therefore the judgments'in both of the above-numbered and entitled causes are affirmed.

ABMSTBONG and DOYLE, JJ., concur.


text:
    MACK COX v. STATE.
    No. A-1078.
    Opinion Filed June 15, 1912.
    Appeal from Carter County Court; M. P. Winfrey, Judge.
    Mack Cox was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Sigler & Howard, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Mack Cox, was convicted in the county court of Garter county, at the January, 1911, term, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and adjudged to pay a fine of two hundred dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of ninety days. We have carefully considered the record and briefs in this case. The issue is a pure question of fact-, and we do not feel that the verdict of the jury should be disturbed. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


text:
    TOM FORD v. STATE.
    No. A-1079.
    Opinion Filed June 15, 1912.
    Appeal from Carter County Court; M. P. Winfrey, Judge.
    Tom Pord was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Sigler & Howard, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Tom Pord, was convicted in the-county court of Carter county at the January, 1911, term, on a charge-of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of' o.ne hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of ninety days. We have carefully examined the record, and find no error sufficient to justify a reversal. The judgment of the trial court is-therefore affirmed.


text:
    JOE RATLIFF v. STATE.
    No. A-1153.
    Opinion Filed June 15, 1912.
    Appeal from Ellis County Court; A. L. Squire, Judge.
    Joe Eatliff was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and’ appeals.:
    Reversed and remanded.
    Perry J. Morris and Charles Swindall, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson and E., G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Joe Ratliff, was convicted in-the county court of Ellis county at the January, 1911, term of the Shattuek division, on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of five hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period' of one hundred twenty days. The proof in this case shows that the accused received certain shipments of intoxicating liquors at the railroad station at Shattuck. It does not clearly show that he received' this particular shipment. There is no evidence of any kind tending to-show that the accused ever sold any of the liquor in question, or any other liquor, or ever offered to sell any to any one; and under the repeated holdings of this court, the conviction in this case was against the testimony. As a matter of Jaw, there is no testimony upon which this conviction can stand. In Brooks Andrews v. State, 6 Okla. Or. 619, this court said:

“The only proof in this record upon which the conviction is based is-that the defendant had possession of certain intoxicating liquor. This court has held that the possesion of an rinusual quantity of intoxicating liquors is a circumstance that may be considered together with 'other competent evidence in the trial of a person charged with the offense of' having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. But the mere possession of such whisky without any other proof of any kind is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.”

See, also, Johnson v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 128: Lowry v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 187; Ridley v. State, 5 Okla. Or. 522.

County attorneys and trial courts should not force the taxpayers of their counties to the expense of trying cases of this kind unless they can ■come within the rules of the law. Vigilance and enforcement of the law is always to be commended. But this court has decided this question so often that there is no excuse for appeals involving this proposition to be brought here again, until further legislative action, at any rate. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.


text:
    JOHN SHAW v. STATE.
    No. A-1289.
    Opinion Filed June 15, 1912.
    Appeal from Woods County Court; W. M. Bickel, Judge.
    John Shaw was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and ■appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Chase & Stevens, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, John Shaw, was convicted at the April, 1911, -term of the county court of Woods county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of ninety days and a fine of one hundred fifty dollars. We have carefully examined the record, and find no error sufficient to justify a reversal. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    JOHN SHAW v. STATE.
    No. A-1290.
    Opinion Filed June 15, 1912.
    Appeal from Woods County Court; W. M. Bickel, Judge.
    John Shaw was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Chase & Stevens, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, John Shaw, was convicted on the 14th day of April, 1911, in the county court of Woods 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 hun■dred fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of ninety days. The attorney general has filed a motion to dismiss the ■appeal on the ground that it was not taken as provided by.law. Judgment was pronounced in the trial court on the 27th day of April, 1911. 'The case-made was served on the 20th day of July, 1911. On June 6, 1911, long after the time fixed by law within which the case-made ■could be served, the trial court attempted to extend the time for serving the case-made, but such order is void. The county judge had no jurisdiction to make said order after the expiration of the thirty days provided by the statute, no order extending the time having been made within such time. The motion to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.


text:
    JERRY WOOD v. STATE.
    No. A-1459.
    Opinion Filed June 21, 1912.
    Appeal from Oklahoma County Court; John W. Hayson, Judge.

      Jerry Wood was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. J. Davidson, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and G. J. Davenport, for the-State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Jerry Wood, was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county, on the 15th day of June, 1911,. on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with-intent to sell the same, and on the 30th day of said month was sentenced by the court in accordance with the verdict of the jury to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and serve a term of six months in the county-jail. Upon a careful examination of the record we find no error sufficient to justify a reversal of this cause. The judgment of the trial court-is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    W. B. McKENZIE v. STATE.
    No. A-1449.
    Opinion Filed June 21, 1912.
    Appeal from Woods County Court; W. M. Bielde, Judge.
    W. B. McKenzie was convicted of violating the prohibitory law,, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. II. Mauntel, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the-State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, W. B. McKenzie, was convicted in the county court of Woods county, on the 24th day of July, 1911, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of three hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a term of ninety days. Upon a careful examination of the record we find no error sufficiently prejudicial to justify a reversal of' this cause. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    JOHN EATON v. STATE.
    No. A-1462.
    Opinion Filed June 21, 1912.
    Appeal from Woods County Court; W. M. Bielde, Judge.
    John Eaton was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. I-T. Mauntel, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, John Eaton, was convicted' at the July, 191.1, term of the county court of Woods county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquors, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of ninety days- and a fine of one hundred fifty dollars. Upon a careful examination of the record we find no error sufficient to justify a reversal of this cause. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    JOHN EATON v. STATE.
    No. A-3463.
    Opinion Filed June 21, 1912.
    Appeal from Woods County Court; W. M. Bielde, Judge.
    John Eaton was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.'

      C. H. Mauntel, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith O. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and ■State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The plaintiff in error, John Eaton, was eonvieted at the July, 1911, term of the county court of. Woods county, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquors, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of ninety days and a fine of ■one hundred fifty dollars. Upon a careful examination of the record we find no error sufficient to justify a reversal of this cause. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    F. D. TAGGART v. STATE.
    No. A-1467.
    Opinion Filed June 21, 1912.
    Appeal from Oklahoma County Court; John W. Ilayson, Judge.
    P. D. Taggart was eonvieted of violating the prohibitory law, appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Giddings & Giddings, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, P. D. Taggart, was at the April, 1911, term of the county court of Oklahoma county, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and was adjudged to pay a fine of five hundred ■dollars and be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of six months. Judgment was rendered against the accused on the 28th day of June, 1911. The petition in error and ease-made were filed in this court on the 3rd day of November, 1911, long after the time provided by law within which the appeal could be taken. The attorney general has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not filed within the time provided by the statute, and that this court is without jurisdiction to review the same. The motion is sustained and the appeal dismissed.


text:
    WILL CARTER v. STATE.
    No. A-1713.
    Opinion Filed July 9, 1912.
    Appeal from District Court, McClain County; E. McMillan, Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty in the district court ■of McClain county of the offense of burglary in the second degree, .and his punishment was assessed at two years confinement in the state penitentiary. Prom this judgment appellant prosecuted an appeal. The ■appellant lias filed a motion in this court asking that said appeal be ■dismissed, and it is so ordered.


text:
    OTTO McSPADDEN v. STATE.
    No. A-1474.
    Opinion Filed July 9, 1912.
    Appeal from Eogfers County Court; II. Tom Kight, Judge.
    Bonds & Howard, for appellant.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CUEIAM.

Appellant' was convicted in the county court Eogers county for violating the prohibitory liquor laws and liis punishment was assessed at a fine of fifty dollars and thirty days confinement in the county jail. Only one witness testified on this trial. É. D. Crowell, being placed on the stand for tho state, testified that some time during December prior to the institution of this prosecution he bought a drink of whisky in the Chelsa drug store from appellant. This witness was evidently hostile to the state and did everything in his power to screen and protect the appellant. But this only added to-the force of his testimony. Appellant did not introduce any testimony-Counsel for appellant raised a number of interesting questions of law,, but on the testimony the jury could not have reached any other verdict, than that, of guilty. See McLaughlin v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 347. The-appellant was therefore not injured by the rulings of the trial court on the questions raised. The judgment of the lower court-is therefore in all things affirmed.


text:
    JOHN METCALF v. STATE.
    No. A-1396.
    Opinion Filed July 9, 1912.
    Appeal from Ottawa County Court; W. Wyatt Quigley, Judge.
    ■ O. F. Mason, for appellant.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Ottawa county for the offense of violating the prohibitory liquor laws-of the state, and his punishment was assessed at sixty days confinement in the county jail and a fine of two hundred fifty dollars. The evidence for the state clearly established the guilt of appellant. We find no errors of law in the record. The judgment of the lower eoiiri*is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    JOE LEE v. STATE.
    No. A-1551.
    Opinion Filed July 9, 1912.
    Appeal from Oklahoma County Court; John W. Hayson, Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law and appealed. On motion of counsel for appellant the appeal in this case is dismissed, and the mandate will issue at onee-


text:
    M. J. MUNDY v. STATE.
    No. A-1460.
    Opinion Filed July 9, 1912.
    Appeal from Pottawatomie County Court; Ross F. Loekridge, Judge.
    M. J. Mundy was convicted, of violating the prohibitory law, and' appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. M. Baldwin, C. J. Pittman and A. J. Carlton, for appellant.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Pottawatomie county for unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquors from one place in the county to another place in said county, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of fifty dollars and thirty days’ confinement in the county jail. The issues involved were clearly submitted to the jury in the instructions of the court. The jury are the exclusive judges of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. As the jury has seen fit to accept the testimony of the state and reject the testimony of the appellant, we cannot do otherwise than affirm this conviction.


text:
    EMMETT SANDERS et al. v. STATE.
    No. A-1171.
    Opinion Filed July 10, 1912.
    Appeal from Pontotoc County Court; Conway O. Barton, Judge.
    Emmett Sanders and John Sanders were convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeal.
    Reversed.

      Stone & Maxey, for plaintiffs in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEE CURIAM.

The plaintiffs in error. Emmett and John Sanders, were convicted at the April, 1911, term of the county court of Pontotoc •county on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same, and their punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars each, and imprisonment for a term of thirty days each in the county jail. The proof in this case shows that the accused, Emmett Sanders received a consignment of whisky from the railroad company at Pitzhugh, Oklahoma, and was taking the same off in a wagon. That John Sanders was riding along the road on horse-back near the wagon. The whisky was consigned to Emmett Sanders, and there is nothing whatever to connect John Sanders with the transaction, further than that he was riding along the road on horseback near the wagon in which the whisky was being hauled. There is a total want of proof upon the part of the state to establish the intent to sell the whisky. There was not even an attempt made by the prosecution to show that the whisky was intended for sale, further than to establish the quantity of the liquor in possession of the accused, and the fact that the accused had received other shipments. This court has so often held that possession alone is not sufficient to sustain a conviction had for the unlawful possession of whisky with intent to sell the same that it is useless to deal with this question at length. The judgment cannot be upheld. Let •the judgment of the trial court be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.


text:
    OSCAR HYBARGER v. STATE.
    No. A-1298.
    Opinion Filed July 10, 1912.
    Appeal from Garvin County Court; W. B. M. Mitchell, Judge.
    Oscar Hybarger was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, anil appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. S. Garrison and Thompson & Patterson, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith O. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the April, 1911, term of the county court of Garvin county on a charge of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor from one place within Garvin •county to another place therein, and was adjudged to pay, a fine of fifty dollars and be confined in the county jail for a term of thirty days. Upon a careful examination of the record we find no error Sufficient to justify a reversal of this judgment. It is therefore affirmed.


text:
    GEORGE COLLINS v. STATE.
    No. A-1415.
    Opinion Filed July 13, 1912.
    Appeal from Pawnee County Court; ' Pred S. Liscum, Judge.
    George Collins was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, ■and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    G. W. Goodwin, and J. M. Hayes, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, George Collins, was tried and convicted in the county court of Pawnee county on an information . which charged the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors with the unlawful intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. and was sentenced to serve a term of six months in the countv jail and to pay a fine of- five hundred dollars. Which judgment and sentence was entered August loth, 1911. From which judgment the defendant appeals. -The proof on the part of the prosecution was that- the agent of the M., K. & T. railroad company, and also of the American Express company at Clevland, Pawnee county, delivered to the defendant, George Collins, two boxes of liquor, at which time the defendant receipted for the same. There was also introduced by the state a certified copy of the record of payment by the defendant of the special tax required of liquor dealers by the United States, in the sum of twenty-five dollars for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1911. Another witness-testified that the defendant on or about the date alleged in the information gave to him and another party, at the defendant’s place of business a drink of whisky. The defendant testified on his own behalf and' denied the possession of the liquors alleged, but did.not deny the payment of the special tax. Several witnesses on his behalf testified that he was not in Pawnee county at the time alleged in the information. We are of opinion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, 'and finding- no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.


text:
    TOM HEAD v. STATE.
    No. A-1475.
    Opinion Filed July 20, 1912.
    Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
    Osborn & Farríss and E. O. Glaseo, for petitioner.
    Ben Franklin, W. H. Wood, and W. J. Wallace, Co. Attv., for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus praying that respondent, W. II. Wood, county judge of McClain county, be required to dismiss certain criminal causes pending- in McClain county against petitioner. On a careful examination of the record we are of the opinion that the writ should be denied, and it is so ordered. See- . Parker v. State, infra; and Ex parte. Bowes, infra.