text:
    NICK NOVOKOVICH v. STATE.
    No. A-1158.
    Opinion Filed November 16, 1911.
    Appeal from District Court, Muskogee County; John H. King, Judge.
    Nick Novokovieh was convicted of the crime of assault with intent to kill, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Allen & Nichols, for plaintiff in error.
   PEE CUBIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Nick Novokovieh, was convicted in the district court of Muskogee county upon an information wherein.he was charged with the crime of assault with intent to kill by shooting one George Panos. On November 28, 1910, judgment was entered and he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict of the jury, to be imprisoned in the penitentiary for a term of one year and one day. From the judgment and sentence an appeal was perfected by filing in this court on May 26, 1911, a petition in error with case-made. On November 15, 1911, the plaintiff in error filed his motion to dismiss said appeal and requesting that the district court of Muskogee county be directed to immediately enforce its judgment by ordering said plaintiff in error to be committed to the penitentiary at MeAlester to serve his sentence. The motion to dismiss the appeal is hereby’ granted, the appeal dismissed and the cause forthwith remanded to the district court of Muskogee county with direction to cause its judgment therein to be carried into execution without delay.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    HARRY TAYLOR, alias HARRY BERKSHIRE v. STATE.
    No. A-1215.
    Opinion Filed November 16, 1911.
    Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; L. M. Poe, Judge.
    John D. AYakely, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Harry Taylor, alias Harry Berkshire, was convicted in the district court of Tulsa county of the crime of burglary, and. sentenced to be imprisoned in the state penitentiary at hard labor for a term of three years. The judgment and sentence was pronounced and entered on March 18, 1911. An appeal was perfected by filing in this court on June 24th, 1911, a petition in error with case-made. On November 3rd, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that since April 21, 1911, said plaintiff in error has been a fugitive from justice. That since his conviction in the cause now pending in this court, plaintiff in error has committed another offense amounting to a felony against the laws of this state, and immediately after the commission of such offense, fled without the bounds of this state and beyond the jurisdiction of this court, and his whereabouts is now unknown, as appears from the affidavits of Pat Malloy, county attorney of Tulsa county, and AY. M. McCullough, sheriff, and L. L. Hall, deputy sheriff of said county. It now appears that said plaintiff in error was arrested upon a criminal charge in the state of Missouri, and was surrendered on extradition proceedings by the officers of the state and has been returned to the county jail of Tulsa county, and he now consents that the motion to dismiss his appeal herein be sustained. It is therefore ordered that the appeal be, and is, hereby dismissed, and the cause remanded forthwith to the district court of Tulsa county with direction to enforce the judgment therein.


text:
    J. A. CARMACK AND JOHN PRICE v. STATE.
    No. A-822.
    Opinion Filed November 21, 1911.
    Appeal from Coal County Court; R. H. AVells, Judge.
    J. A. Carmack and John Price were convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeal.
    Affirmed.
    C. M. Threadgill, for plaintiffs in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs in error were convicted in the county court of Coal county on the 12th day of May, 1910, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and were each sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars and serve thirty days in the county jail. A careful examination of the record discloses no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiffs in error, and the judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


author: PEB CURIAM.

text:
    RALPH JONES v. STATE.
    No. A-937.
    Opinion Filed November 21, 1911.
    Appeal from Superior Court, Muskogee County;
    Parrar L. McCain, Judge.
    Balph Jones was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Geo. Wheatley, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEB CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Balph. Jones, was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and on the 30th day of June, 1910, was sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of thirty daj's. The petition in error and case-made were not filed in this court until the 29th day of October, 1910, more than one hundred and twenty days from the date the judgment was rendered. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the appeal was not perfected in this court within the time allowed by law. The motion is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.


author: PEB CUBIAM.

text:
    W. L. McNATT v. STATE.
    No. A-951.
    Opinion Filed November 21, 1911.
    Appeal from Osage County Court; C. T. Bennett, Judge.
    W. L. McNatt was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Hargis, Sams & Hargis, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEB CUBIAM.

Plaintiff in error, W. L. McNatt, was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and on the 23rd day of May, 1910, was sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and be confined in the county jail thirty days. The petition in error and ease-made were not filed in this court until the 23rd day of November, 1910, and the Attorney General, therefore, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that it was not perfected within the time allowed by law. The motion is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.


text:
    W. T. WATSON v. STATE.
    No. A-952.
    Opinion Filed November 21, 1911.
    Appeal from Seminole County Court; T. S. Cobb, Judge.
    W. T. Watson was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Crawford & Bolen, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEB CUBIAM.

Plaintiff in error, W. T. Watson, was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and was, on the 17th day of August, 1910, sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of one hundred dollars. No briefs have been filed and no appearance made on behalf of plaintiff in error. Por this reason the Attorney General has filed a motion to affirm for failure to prosecute the appeal. The motion is sustained, and the judgment of the county court of Seninole count is therefore affirmed, and the cause remanded with direction to enforce the judgment and sentence.


text:
    GEORGE BAKER v. STATE.
    No. A-850.
    Opinion Filed November 21, 1911.
    Appeal from -Texas County Court; W. C. Crow, Judge.
    George Baker was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Reversed.
    M. G. Wiley and William Edens, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., E. G. Spillman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEB CUBIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law and was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. Judgment and sentence was entered on May 9, 1910. A petition in error was filed in this court on August 5, 1910. The Attorney General has filed a confession of error, in part as follows:

“In this ease the defendant was charged, by information, with unlawful possession of spiritous liquors with the intention of transporting such liquors from the restaurant of A. L. Baker in Guymon, Texas county, Oklahoma, to the Park hotel in Guymon, Texas county. It seems that he had previously been placed on trial, October 6, 1909, charged with transporting intoxicating liquors from the residence of A. L. Baker in G-uymon, Texas county, Oklahoma, to the restaurant of A. L. Baker, in G-uymon, Texas county, state of Oklahoma, and at the time he was first tried, testified that he had the whisky in question and intended to take it to the Park hotel and from thence to Pratt, Kansas. The evidence he gave in the first case is introduced in this case, presumably as an admission of guilt on his part. There is no question but that the defendant did have in possession five pints of whisky -and that he had them on his person and was_ engaged in taking them or transporting them from the restaurant mentioned to the Park hotel, across ^he street. That is his own testimony. It is true, he adds, that he intended to put the whisky in his grip and take it with him to Pratt, Kansas, to which place he was about to return to resume his position as railroad employee, firing an engine. It is useless to discuss this case further, however, because an examination of the instructions given by the trial court discloses the fact that the jury were instructed that the evidence given on a former trial, defendant’s admission that he conveyed whisky from the restaurant to the Park hotel en route to Kansas, should be taken by the jury as the- testimony of defendant in this case. The instruction is as follows:
“ ‘The court further instructs the jury in this case that in this ease the state has offered in evidence that testimony of the defendant given by him’ as a witness upon his behalf, in a former trial, that the whole of the testimony so read must be taken together, that which makes for the accused, as well as which may make against him, and the testimony so offered and read for the state must be considered as testimony of the defendant in this case as far as it goes.’
“This testimony was the testimony' of the state and not that of defendant. He could not be forced to give evidence against himself.
“Sec. 21, art. 2, of the Constitution (Bill of-Eights), provides:
“ ‘No imrson shall be compelled to give evidence which will tend to incriminate him, except as in this Constitution specifically provided; nor shall any person after having been once acquitted by the jury, be again put in jeopardy of life or liberty for that of which he has been acquitted. Nor shall any jDerson be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the Same offense.’
“The instruction is in direct conflict with this guaranty.
‘ ‘ Eespectfully submitted,
“CHARLES WEST, Atty. Gen.,
“E. G. SPILMAN, Asst. Atty. Gen.,
“SMITH C. MATSON, Asst. Atty.’Gen.”

As to the instruction quoted above the plaintiff in error contends that it does not contain a proper statement of the law. The instruction states that: “The testimony so offered and read for the state must be considered as the testimony of the defendant in this case.” The defendant did not testify as a witness on his own behalf in the case on trial, but from the language of the court in this instruction it would appear that the court directed the jury to consider the testimony of the defendant in a former ease as his testimony as a witness in the ease on trial. Eor this reason we are of opinion that the instruction was erroneous. The judgment of the county court of Texas county is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.


text:
    W. F. THOMPSON v. STATE.
    No. A-961.
    Opinion Filed November 21, 1911.
    Appeal from Love County Court; E. A. Keller, Judge.
    W. P. Thompson was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    T. C. Bennett, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of a violation of law, and was, on the 3rd day of August, 1910, sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred fifty dollars and serve ninety days in the county jail. On the same date plaintiff in error was given sixty days within which to perfect his appeal in this court. The petition in error and case-made were not filed in this court until the 2nd day of December, 1910, one hundred twenty-one days after the rendition of judgment. Por the reason that the appeal was not filed within the time allowed by law and the order of the court, this court is without jurisdiction to review the same, and, upon motion of the Attorney General, the appeal is hereby dismissed.


text:
    BOB WATSON v. STATE.
    No. A-989.
    Opinion Filed November 21, 1911.
    Appeal from Oklahoma County Court; Sam Hooker, Judge.
    Bob Watson was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Guthrie & Cardwell, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith O. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county on the 28th day of May, 1910, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days and a fine of .fifty dollars. A careful examination of the record discloses no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of plaintiff in error, and the judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.


text:
    JOE BROWN v. STATE.
    No. A-836.
    Opinion Filed November 22, 1911.
    Appeal from Jackson Oounty Court; W. T. McConnell, Judge.
    Joe Brown was convicted, of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    S. B. Garrett, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the April, 1910, term of the county court of Jackson county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor. Only two witnesses testified in the case, the prosecuting witness, whose testimony is not entirely satisfactory, and the defendant. The issue of fact was a close one. The court in its instructions called the attention of the jury to the interest of the defendant in the result of the trial in the following language:

“The defendant in a criminal ease has the right to testify in his own behalf, and you have the right to consider his testimony in the light of all the facts as you would the testimony of any other witness; however, you are the exclusive judges of all the testimony and credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given their testimony, and in considering their testimony, you may take into consideration the interest, if any, they have in the result of the case in considering their credibility; but for the law you will look alone to the charge of the court and be governed thereby.”

We think this instruction is error sufficient to entitle the accused to a new trial in view of the testimony in the case. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the lower court to grant a new trial.


text:
    W. J. CREEKMORE v. STATE.
    No. A-794.
    Opinion Filed November 22, 1912.
    Appeal from Ottawa County Court; W. Y. Quigley, Judge. '
    W. J. Creekmore was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    O. L. Rider, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the county court of Ottawa county on a charge of violating the prohibitory law, by having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of unlawfully selling the same by himself and through Chas. Kelley, his servant and agent. There is no proof in the record which shows that he had anything whatever to do with maintaining the place, or that there was any agreement or relation between him and Kelley. The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the cause remanded.


author: PEB OUBIAM.

text:
    C. E. SIBEL v. STATE.
    No. A-750.
    Opinion Filed November 22, 1911.
    Appeal from Ellis County Court; E. A. Williams, Judge.
    C. E. Sibel was convicted of a misdemeanor, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    W. A. Briggs, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEB OUBIAM.

Plaintiff in error was indicted by the grand jury of Ellis county on a charge of conducting a “banking and percentage game, played with pool balls, and cue, and played for money.” The indictment was transferred to the county court and the accused was thereafter tried and convicted, and from such judgment of conviction the appeal is brought here' for review. The proof shows that certain persons living in the town of Arnett, in Ellis county, played a game commonly known as “Kelly Pool” in the pool hall of the accused on or about the 20th day of November, 1908, in the language of the prosecuting witness “for twenty-five cents on the side.” But it nowhere shows that the accused knew this, or had anything to do with the game. The evidence is entirely insufficient to sustain this conviction. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.


text:
    TODD WANZA v. STATE.
    No. A-1259.
    Opinion Filed November 22, 1911.
    Appeal from District Court, Okfuskee County; John Carauthers, Judge.
    C. T. Huddleston, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PEB CUBIAM.

Todd Wanza, plaintiff in error, was tried and convicted in the district court of Okfuskee county upon an indictment duly returned by the grand jury where he was charged with the crime of selling intoxicating liquor to a minor. February 15, 1911, he was sentenced to serve a term of three years imprisonment at hard labor in the penitentiary. To reverse this judgment an appeal was perfected. The Attorney General confesses error for the reason that in the case of John Nowakowski v. State, infra, 116 Pac. 351, it was by this, court held that the act under which this prosecution was instituted and carried on is unconstitutional and void. The confession of error is sustained. The judgment of the district court of Okfuskee county is reversed and the cause remanded with direction to transfer the same to the county court of said county for trial.


text:
    E. S. ROOT v. STATE.
    No. A-758.
    Opinion Filed November 22, 1911.
    Appeal from Blaine County Court; George W. Ferguson, Judge.
    E. S. Boot was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and apipeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Guthrie & Cardwell, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the county court of Blaine county upon an information charging him with maintaining a club, run by association with other persons, for the sale of intoxicating liquors, the charging part of the information being: "did then and there, unlawfully, willfully and.intentionally, knowingly, wantonly, maliciously, and feloniously, and without authority of law, keep and maintain, by associating and combining with other persons whose names are to the county attorney unknown, a certain club room in the city of Geary, in the county of Blaine, in the state of Oklahoma, and in which said club room certain intoxicating liquors, to wit, beer and whisky, was then and there kept by the said E. S. Root for the purpose of distributing and dividing among the members of said club or association, the names of the members of said club or association are to the county attorney unknown.” The testimony introduced on behalf of the state fails to show that he was associated will any other persons for the purpose of maintaining a club for the purposes charged in the information. In order to sustain a judgment of conviction on a charge of this kind it is necessary for the proof to show that there was such an association. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.


text:
    LUCIUS POPE v. STATE.
    No. A-1253.
    Opinion Filed November 22, 1911.
    Appeal from District Court, Washita County; James R. Tolbert, Judge.
    .Lucius Pope was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor to a minor and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded with direction to dismiss.
    Smith & Wagner, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was, on a preliminary examination, held upon a complaint filed in the county court of Washita county, charging the crime of selling intoxicating liquor to a minor held to await the aetion of the district court. Upon which proceeding the county attorney of said county filed an information in the district court charging said offense. Upon a trial had in the district court he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of one year. The Attorney General has filed a confession of error herein. In the case of John Nowakowski v. State, infra, 116 Pac. 351, it was held that the act under which this prosecution was instituted and carried on is unconstitutional and void; that the offense denounced by the act is still only a misdemeanor; and that the district court therefore had no jurisdiction of the offense. The district courts of this state are without jurisdiction to try misdemeanor cases, and where an information is filed in a district court charging an offense of no higher degree than a misdemeanor, such court is without power or authority to even transfer such information to the county court; the provision for transferring being limited to indictments for misdemeanors returned by a grand jury. It then follows that this prosecution has never been legally instituted and must be dismissed. The judgment of the district court of Washita county is therefore reversed and the 'cause remanded with direction to dismiss the prosecution.


text:
    BROOKS ANDREWS v. STATE.
    No. A-920.
    Opinion Filed November 23, 1911.
    Appeal from Jefferson County Court; G. M. Bond, Judge.
    Brooks Andrews was eonvieted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Bridges & Vertrees, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Brooks Andrews, was convicted in the county court of Jefferson county at the July, 1910, term, on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor for the unlawful purpose of selling the same, and his punishment fixed at thirty days' imprisonment in the county jail and a fine of one hundred dollars. 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 possession of an unusual 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 liquors 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. The only proof having been offered in this ease being proof of possession alone, the judgment will be reversed and a new trial awarded, and it is so ordered.


text:
    A. E. ROGERS v. STATE.
    No. A-926.
    Opinion Filed November 23, 1911.
    Appeal from Superior Court, Logan County, J. M. Sandlin, Judge.
    A. E. Rogers was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and
    appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    H. C. Olds, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the superior

court of Logan county on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor with the unlawful intention of Selling the same, and, on the 4th day of June, 1910, was sentenced by the court to pay a fine of fifty dollars and serve thirty days in the county jail. The appeal was perfected in this court on the 14th day of October, 1910, more than 120 days after the rendition of the judgment. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the same was not filed within the time provided by law. The motion is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed with directions to the trial court to enforce the judgment and sentence.


text:
    EARNEST RAMSEY and O. WILLIAMS v. STATE.
    No. A-957.
    Opinion Filed November 21, 1911.
    Appeai from Bryan County Court; Chas. A. Phillips, Judge.
    Earnest Ramsey and O. Williams were convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeal.
    Affirmed.
    J. Q. A. Harrod, for plaintiffs in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs in error, Earnest Ramsey and O. Williams, were convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and, on the 4th day of October, 1910, were each sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars and serve thirty days in the county jail. The petition in error and case-made were filed in this court on the 24th day of November, 1910, but were never filed in the office of the clerk of the county court of Bryan county, as required by sec. 6951, Snyder's Stat. Eor this reason the Attorney General has filed a motion to strike the cash-made from the record. The motion is sustained, and the case-made is accordingly stricken. No error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiffs in error appears in the transcript. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.


author: PER CURIAM.'

text:
    JAMES STEINBACH v. STATE.
    No. A-833.
    Opinion Filed November 23, 1911.
    Appeal from Alfalfa County Court; F. M. (Justin, Judge. .
    James Steinbach was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Titus & Carpenter, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.'

Plaintiff in error, James Steinbach, was convicted in the county court of Alfalfa county on the 9th day of May, 1910, on a charge of having in his possession beer for the unlawful purpose of Selling the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 90 days. The record shows that on the 24th day of December, 1909, the town marshal of Carmen, a town situated in Alfalfa county, went to the place of business of the accused with a search warrant and seized one hundred two bottles of “Pablo,” and on the same day, and in the same town, seized a number of bottles of different kinds of beveridges from a person referred to in the testimony as “Dutch John”; that all of said bottles were placed in the city jail, and a few days thereafter the marshal and some other persons invoiced, sorted and placed the bottles in a cave in the possession of one R. F. Boyce, a justice of the peace in said town. A short time thereafter the county attorney went to the cave and took some of the bottles belonging, as the state contends, to the accused and to “Dutch John.” He kept them in his office some few days and then delivered them to the sheriff, who in turn sent two bottles to the state chemist, Dr. DeBarr, for analysis. One of these bottles, it is contended by the state, was from the lot seized from the accused, the other from those seized from “Dutch John.” The prosecution introduced at the trial a bottle marked “Exihbit A”, which the state contends was selected from the seizure made at the place of business of the accused. This bottle had a crown or top with the word “Pabst” in plain letters across the face. Dr. EeBarr testified that “Exhibit A” was examined by him and that it contained beer. He further testified that “Pablo” rarely ever goes over one-half of one per cent, alcohol; that there were several other bottles received from the sheriff in the same package with “Exhibit A.” He further testified that a bottle of “Pablo” selected from this seizure contained .38 per cent, alcohol. The accused sought to introduce testimony tending to show that the state’s “Exhibit A” was never owned by him, and was by mistake taken from the other seizure. The court refused to allow the introduction of this testimony. The court should have permitted the introduction of this testimony by the plaintiff in error. He had a right to introduce whatever competent proof he could, tending to show a mistake had occurred. The identity of “Exhibit A” is very unsatisfactory, and especially should this testimony have been admitted in view of this fact. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant the plaintiff in error a new trial.


text:
    WALTER BOWERS v. STATE.
    No. A-771.
    Opinion Filed November 23, 1911.
    Appeal from Rogers County Court; Archibald Bonds, Judge.
    Walter Bowers was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    J. I. Howard, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Rogers county on the 17th day of January, 1910, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and was by the court sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and be imprisoned in the county jail six months. The proof tends to show that the plaintiff in error sold one bottle of beer to the prosecuting witness. The only question urged in this court is that the information upon which the accused was tried does not state sufficient facts to give the county court of Rogers county jurisdiction to try the defendant and impose this judgment. The information is in the following language, to wit:

"Be it remembered, that W. M. Hall, county attorney, in and for the county of Rogers, state of Oklahoma, who prosecutes in the name and by the authority of the state of Oklahoma, comes here in person into the county court of said county, this 13th day of November, A. D. 1909, and upon the affidavit of James D. Sellers, duly subscribed and sworn to by him as provided by law, and the same is hereto attached, ‘Marked Exhibit A’ and made a part hereof, gives the court to understand and be informed that on or about the 23rd day of October, A. D. 1909, in the county of Rogers, state of Oklaho'ma, one Lige Ping and Walter Bowers, then and there being, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully sell spirituous, vinous and fermented intoxicating liquor, commonly called beer, to James D. Sellers, contrary to the form of the statutes in such eases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state.
"W. M. HALL, County Attorney.”

The county attorney verified the same in the usual form. The affidavit upon which the information is based is as follows:

"James D. Sellers, being duly sworn states that on or about the 23rd day of October, 1909, in the Elite pool hall in Claremore, Rogers county, Oklahoma, I bought one bottle of Blue Ribbon beer from a young man by the name of Walter, that is, Walter handed me the beer and took the money, twenty-five cents. I do not know Walter’s other name. Lige Ping was downstairs in the pool room and I got the beer upstairs.
"JAMES D. SELLERS.
"This November 13, 1909.
"Sworn to and subscribed before me this Nov. 13, 1909.
"ARCHIBALD BONDS, County Judge.”

(Seal of county court.)

This information is entirely insufficient. The county attorney should have prepared and filed an information in due and proper form and had it verified by the prosecuting witness, instead of basing it upon the ex parte affidavit of the prosecuting witness. The affidavit does not charge Walter Bowers with any offense and there is nothing in the affidavit from which it could be reasonably inferred that Walter Bowers made the sale of beer the witness refers to in the statement. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the county court of Rogers county to set aside the information and require the county attorney to file a proper one and proceed with the cause as the law provides.


text:
    JENNIE HAYWOOD v. STATE.
    No. A-960.
    Opinion Filed November 24, 1911.
    Appeal from Payne County Court; P. D. Mitchell, Judge.
    Jennie Haywood was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Freeman E. Miller, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the county court of Payne county at the July, 1910, term, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of thirty days. A number of errors are assigned for a reversal of this cause; among others, error of the court in giving the following instruction:

“The jury are instructed that in determining the weight to be given to the testimony of a witness, you will take into consideration the intelligence of the witness, the circumstances surrounding the witness at the time, concerning the matter about which he testifies; his interest, if any, in the result of the action; his bias, or prejudice, if any; his manner on the witness stand; his apparent fairness or want of fairness, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of his testimony; his knowledge and means of observation, the character of his testimony, whether affirmative or negative — and all matters and facts and circumstances shown in the evidonee on the trial bearing upon the question of the weight to be given to his testimony, and give each witness’ testimony such weight as to you it may seem fairly entitled. You are to believe as jurors what you would believe as men, and there is no rule of law which requires you to believe as jurors what you would not believe as men.”

This courj; held, in the case of Nelson v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 368, 114 Pac. 1124, that an instruction similar to the one here given was erroneous, and was sufficient to entitle the accused to a new trial. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.


text:
    TROY GRIFFIN v. STATE.
    No. A-772.
    Opinion Filed November 24, 1911.
    Appeal from the Cleveland County Court; N. E. Sharp, Judge.
    Troy Griffin was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Ben E. Williams, Jr., and Guthrie & Cardwell, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Troy Griffin'was convicted at the May, 1909, term of the county court of Cleveland county, upon a charge of unlawfully conveying whisky, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The charging part of the information upon which this conviction is based is as follows:

"Did then and there unlawfully, wilfully, transport and convey intoxicating liquors of the following description, to wit, whisky, of a kind and brand marked as ‘Old McBrayer Whisky,’ from one place in the city of Norman, Oklahoma, Cleveland county, to another place therein, same being from one place in the state of Oklahoma to another place therein, and not in conveyance of a legal purchase thereof from the state agency of Oklahoma provided. Contrary to the form of the Constitution and statutes in such eases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Oklahoma.”

Counsel for the plaintiff in error challenged the sufficiency of the information by demurrer, as follows: "Because said information does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense against defendant,” and a motion in arrest of judgment, as follows:

"1st. The allegations of the indictment does not substantially conform to the requirements of the law. 2nd. That the facts stated in said indictment does not constitute a public offense against the law of the state of Oklahoma.”

In the case of DeGraff v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 519, 103 Pac. 538, discussing a proposition involving the principle under consideration, this court said:

"An information or indictment for transferring liquor from one place in the state to another place therein, must show upon its face a removal from one locality in the state or city or county to another locality in the state, or city, or county. If these different localities are known, they should be stated; if not known, this should be stated, and it should be made to appear that the removal came within the meaning of the law.”

See also, Munn v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 245, 114 Pac. 272; Porter v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 654. This cause is reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to set aside the judgment of conviction, sustain the demurrer, and permit the county attorney to file a new information.


text:
    FRANK WHEELER v. STATE.
    No. A-807.
    Opinion Filed November 24, 1911.
    Appeal from Murray County Court; Harry W. Fielding, Judge.
    Frank Wheeler was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Ira M. Roberts, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in e^ror, Frank Wheeler, was convicted in the county court of Murray county at the March, 1910, term, on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor with the unlawful purpose of selling the same, and was thereafter sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred fifty dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of six months. The only proof in this record upon which the conviction is based is that the defendant had possession of certain intoxicating liquor. Following the rule laid down in the case of Brooks Andrews v. State, infra, decided at this term of court, the cause is reversed and remanded with directions to grant a new trial.


text:
    VAL GARDNER v. STATE.
    No. A-710.
    Opinion Filed November 24, 1911.
    Appeal from Woods County Court; R. A. Cameron, Judge.
    Val Gardner was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Mauntel & Stevens, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Val. Gardner, was convicted in the county court of Woods county at the January, 1910, term, on a charge of having possession of intoxicating liquor with the unlawful purpose of selling the same, and was thereafter sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The only proof in this record upon which the conviction is based is that the defendant had possession of certain intoxicating liquor. Following the rule laid down in the case of Brooks Andrews v. State, infra, decided at this term of court, the cause is reversed and remanded with directions to grant a new trial.


text:
    MINER LONDON v. STATE.
    No. A-796.
    Opinion Filed November 24, 1911.
    Appeal from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, Judge.
    Patterson & Lilley, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the superior court of Muskogee county, and on the 5th day of March, 1910, was sentenced by the court to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and -be imprisoned for a period of thirty days in the county jail. From this judgment of conviction plaintiff in error appeals. A careful examination of the record discloses no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.


text:
    STATE v. E. F. REITZ.
    No. A-764.
    Opinion Filed November 24, 1911.
    Appeal from Cleveland County Court; B. F. Wolf, Special Judge.
    Fred S. Caldwell, counsel to the Governor, and Geo. G. Graham, county attorney of Cleveland county, for plaintiff in error.
    Ben F. Williams, Sr., for defendant in error.
   PER CURIAM.

The defendant in error was tried and acquitted in the county court of Cleveland county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor. The state brings this appeal and asks a reversal of the judgment. The questions raised here are settled in the case of Buchanan v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 645, 112 Pac. 32. Upon the authority of that case this judgment is reversed.


text:
    JACK DUNHAM v. STATE.
    No. A-782.
    Opinion Filed November 24, 1911.
    Appeal from Blaine County Court; George W. Ferguson, Judge.
    Jack Dunham was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and apepals.
    Affirmed.
    A. W. Johnson and J. P. Wishard, for plaintiff-in error.
    Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen. (Andrew Wood, of counsel), for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Jack Dunham, was convicted in the county court of Blaine county at the January, 1910, term, on a charge of maintaining a place for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail thirty days. No prejudicial error sufficient to justify a reversal of this cause appearing from the record, the judgment is affirmed.


text:
    JOHN POTTS v. STATE.
    No. A-787.
    Opinion Filed November 24, 1911.
    Appeal from Kiowa County Court; J. W. Mansell, Judge.
    John Potts was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    O. B. Eiegal, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew Wood, of counsel), for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Kiowa county at the January, 1910, term, upon a charge of transporting whisky from the south side of Main street in the town of Manitou, Tillman county, Oklahoma, to the north side of said street in said town in Kiowa county, Oklahoma. A number of errors are complained of in the petition in error and brief; among others, error of the trial court in giving the following instruction:

"The defendant is always presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by competent testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, and unless the evidence in this case does -this, you will find the defendant 'not guilty,' but under the plea of the defendant in this cause, it will be the duty of the defendant to' show to your satisfaction that the whisky was an interstate shipment, and that he was conveying the same to his own home, after having reecived the same from the interstate shipper.''

The testimony tends to show that plaintiff in error was a farmer living near- Manitou; that he had bought a shipment of fruit trees from a nursery at McKinney, Tex.; that he had gone to town for the purpose of receiving the fruit trees and when they were unpacked three pints of whisky were found in a package in the shipment with the words "Presented to John Potts'', written thereon. He took the whisky and the trees, and had not arrived at home when arrested. The instruction of the court, supra, based upon this record, is prejudicial error. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the trial court to grant a new trial.


text:
    ROBERT NELSON v. STATE.
    No. A-774.
    Opinion Filed November 24, 1911.
    Appeal from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, Judge.
    Robert Nelson was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    S. M. Rutherford, for plaintiff in error.
    E. G. Spilman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the superior court of Muskogee county at the January, 1910, term, on a charge of having the possession of intoxicating liquor for the unlawful purpos'e of selling the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of two hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of sixty days. The record shows that this ease was tried by a jury composed of six men. Following the rule laid down in the case of Tillie Hill v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 686, 109 Pac. 291, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.


text:
    TOM RATLIFF v. STATE.
    No. A-968.
    Opinion Filed November 25, 1911.
    Appeal from Ellis County Court; A. E. Williams, Judge.
    Tom Ratliff was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Perry J. Morris, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen.; for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Ellis county at the July, 1910, term, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and on the 12th day of August was sentenced by the court to pay a fine of fifty dollars and be confined in the county jail for a period of thirty days. On this date the court granted 45 days in which to make and serve case-made, but did not fix time for filing petition in error and case-made in this court. On the 24th day of September, thereafter, an additional order was made extending the time 30 days in which to make and serve case-made, but no extension of time was granted within which to file the appeal in this court. On the 5th day of December, 1910, the appeal was filed in this court, nearly 30 days after the time within which the law provides it should have been filed. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not taken within the time allowed by law. The motion is well taken and is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.


text:
    HUD. MADDEN v. STATE.
    No. A-936.
    Opinion Filed November 25, 1911.
    Appeal from Cleveland County Court; N. E. Sharp, Judge.
    Hud. Madden was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    B. P. Wolf, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Cleveland county at the September, 1910, term, on a dharge of unlawfully r<ionveying intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and thirty days’ imprisonment in the county jail. The appeal was filed in this court on the 28th day of October, 1910. No briefs have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error and no appearance made for oral argument. The Assistant Attorney General on the day the case was set for oral argument, moved the court to affirm the judgment for want of prosecution. The motion is well taken and is sustained, and the judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed with directions to enforce it.


author: PER CURIÁM.

text:
    TOM RATLIFF v. STATE.
    No. A-967.
    Opinion Filed November 25, 1911.
    Appeal from Ellis County Court; A. E. Williams, Judge.
    Tom Ratliff was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Perry J. Morris, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIÁM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Ellis county at the July, 1910, term, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquors, and on the 12th day of August was adjudged to pay a fine of two hundred dollars and serve ninety days in the county jail. On the same date the court granted 45 days in which to make and serve case-made, but did not fix time for filing petition in error and case-made in this court. On the 24th day of September thereafter an additional order was made extending the time 30 days in which to make and serve case-made, but no extension of time was granted within which to file the appeal in this court. The appeal was not filed in this court until the 5th day of December, 1910, nearly thirty days after the time within which the law provides it should have been filed. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not taken within the time allowed by law. The motion is well taken and is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.


text:
    RICHARD DUDLEY v. STATE.
    No. A-962.
    Opinion Filed November 25, 1911.
    Appeal from Adair County Court; B. W. Alberty, Judge.
    Richard Dudley was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Wm. P. Harris, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Richard Dudley, was convicted at the October, 1910, term of the county court of Adair county, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same, and was a'djudged to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, and be confined in the county jail for a period of sixty days. Following the rule laid down in the case of Brooks Andrews v. State, infra, decided at the present term of court, this cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to grant a new trial.


text:
    C. C. FLINCHUM v. STATE.
    No. A-880.
    Opinion Filed November 25, 1911.
    Appeal from District Court, Hughes County; John Caruthers, Judge.
    C. C. Flinehum was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Walker & Fancher and Stuart, Cruce & Gilbert, for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. West, Atty. Gen., Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the district court of Hughes county for the crime of grand larceny, committed by stealing a cow, the projjerty of one Mrs. West, and was sentenced to serve a term of two years in the penitentiary. Judgment was entered and setnence pronounced on March 26th, 1910. To reverse this judgment an appeal was perfected; briefs filed and the cause submitted November 24th. On this day on behalf of the plaintiff in error there was filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and to direct the clerk of this court to immediately transmit the mandate. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the cause remanded to the district court of Hughes county with direction to enforce its judgment therein. Mandate to issue forthwith.


text:
    PAT McNAMARA v. STATE.
    No. A-1182.
    Opinion Filed November 25, 1911.
    Appeal from Oklahoma County Court; John W. Hayson, Judge.
    Pat McNamara was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    A. D. Brown, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in. error was convicted at the January, 1911, term of the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and was on March 27th sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of sixty days. The appeal was filed in this court on the 7th day of June, 1911. Pollowing the rule laid down in the case of Stumpf v. State, infra, 117 Pac. 648, the appeal is hereby dismissed.


text:
    J. W. GILLESPIE v. STATE.
    No. A-982.
    Opinion Filed November 25, 1911.
    Appeal from Garfield County Court; James B. Cullison, Judge.
    J. W. Gillespie was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    H. J. Sturgis, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the September, 1910, term of the county court of Garfield county, on a charge of selling-intoxicating liquor, and on the 23rd day of said month was adjudged to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and serve six months in the county jail. The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no notice of appeal was ever -served on the clerk of the county court of Garfield county. A careful examination of the record fails to disclose any proof of service of such notice. This court has repeatedly -held that the proof of the service of such notice must be incorporated in the record, and when this is not done we are without jurisdiction to review the judgment. The motion to dismiss is well taken and is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.


text:
    JOE SMOOK v. STATE.
    No. A-986.
    Opinion Filed November 25, 1911.
    Appeal from Latimer County Court; Cliff Y. Peery, Judge.
    Joe Smoot was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Chas. H. Hudson, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Joe Smook, was convicted at the September, 1910, terfn of the county court of Latimer county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquors, and his punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. No briefs have been filed upon the part of the plaintiff in error, and no appearance made for oral argument. The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to affirm under rule 4, for want of prosecution. The motion is well taken and is sustained, and the judgment is affirmed with directions to enforce it.


text:
    W. L. HUGHES v. STATE.
    No. A-985.
    Opinion Filed November 25, 1911.
    Appeal from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, Judge.
    W. L. Hughes was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and
    appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Brown & Stewart, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the ¿May, 1910, term of the superior court of Muskogee county, and on the 30th day of June was adjudged to pay a fine of fifty dollars and be imprisoned in the county jail thirty days. The appeal was filed in this court on the 28th day of December, 1910, more than 120 days subsequent to the rendition of the judgment. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not filed within the time allowed by law, and therefore this court has no jurisdiction to review the same. The motion is well -taken and is sustained. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.


text:
    J. W. STEELE v. STATE.
    No. A-971.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Opinion Filed November 25, 1911.
    Appeal from Grady County Court; H. Blair, Special Judge.
    J. W. Steele was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.

      E. W. Sliepercl, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. jG-en., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the September, 1910, term of the county court of Grady county, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of beer with the intent to sell, the same, and on the 12th day of said month was adjudged to pay a fine of three hundred dollars and be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of one hundred twenty days. The appeal was filed in this court on the 8th day of December, 1910. Upon the date the judgment was pronounced the court granted sixty days in which to make and serve ease-made, but did not fix any time within which to file petition in error and case-made in this court. The statutory period of sixty days would therefore govern. On the 5th day of November, 1910, 'the court made an order extending the time ten days from the 8th day of November in which to make and serve the ease-made and file the same in this court. This order was sufficient to extend the time until the 18th day of November. The appeal, however, was not filed for twenty days after the time had elapsed within which it could lawfully have been filed. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not filed within the time provided by law or the order of the trial court. The motion is well taken and is sustained. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with directions to the trial court to enforce the judgment and sentence.


text:
    A. L. JOHNSON v. STATE.
    No. A-969.
    Opinion Filed November 25, 1911.
    Appeal from Ellis County Court; A. E. Williams, Judge.
    A. L. Johnson was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Perry J. Morris, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith' C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen.,, for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the court of Ellis county at the July, 1910, term, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor -with the intent to sell the same, and on the 12th day of August, 1910, was adjudged to pay a fine of four hundred dollars and 'be confined in the county jail for a period of ninety days. On this date the court granted 45 days in which to make and serve case-made, but did not fix time for filing petition in error and case-made in this court. On the 24th day of September thereafter an additional order was made extending the time 30 days in which to make and serve case-made, but no extension of time was granted within which to file the appeal in this court. On the 5th day of December, 1910, the appeal was filed in this court, nearly 30 days after the time within .which the law provides it should have been filed. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not taken within the time allowed by law. The motion is well taken, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.


text:
    J. M. NICHOLS v. STATE.
    No. A-981.
    Opinion Filed November 27, 1911.
    Appeal from Garfield County Court; James B. Cullison, Judge.
    J. B. Nichols was convicted of violations of the prohibition law-in .three cases, and appealed.
    One affirmed and two reversed.
    J. M. Dodson, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Garfield county of violations of the prohibition law in three cases and was in each case sentenced to serve a term of sixty days and to pay a fine of two hundred dollars. The judgment and sentence in each ease was entered on September 21, 1910. To reverse these judgments an appeal was taken. When the case was called on the regular assignment for this term, on November 23rd, it was stipulated by counsel for plaintiff in error and the Attorney General in open court that ease, trial court number 1619, should be affirmed, and the eases, trial court numbers 1632 and 1646, should be reversed. The stipulation so made is hereby confirmed and the judgment of the county court of Garfield county in cases numbered 1632 and 1646 are hereby reversed and remanded with direction to dismiss. In ease number 1619, supra, the judgment of the county court of Garfield county is hereby affirmed, and the cause remanded to the county court of Garfield county, with directions to enforce its judgment therein.


text:
    BRUCE HUNT v. STATE.
    No. A-1157.
    Opinion Filed November 27, 1911.
    Appeal from Pawnee County Court; Fred I. Liseum, Judge.
    Bruce Hunt was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law,
    and appeals.
    Affirmed.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Pawnee county of a violation of the prohibition law and sentenced to serve a term of sixty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. The judgment and sentence was entered on April 1, 1911. No brief has been filed. The Attorney General has filed a motion to affirm for failure to prosecute the appeal. For the reason stated the judgment of the county court of Pawnee county is hereby affirmed and the cause remanded thereto with direction to enforce its judgment therein.


text:
    A. W. TUCKER v. STATE.
    No. A-1257.
    Opinion Filed December 4, 1911.
    Appeal from. Grady County Court; N. M. Williams, Judge.
    Chas. West, Atty, Gen., and John H. Tenable, Co. Atty., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

A. W. Tucker, plaintiff in error, was convicted in the county court of Grady county of a violation of the prohibition law and was, on April 29, 1911, sentenced to serve a term of ninety days in the county jail and to pay a fine of one hundred dollars. To reverse this judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court on July 14, 1911, a petition in error with ease-made. October 30th on behalf .of the state there was filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the following reason: "That the appeal herein was not filed within the limit of time allowed by law or the extension of time granted by the court. The same being one day too late.” The record shows that the trial court allowed seventy-five days in which to perfect an appeal to this court, which time expired on July 13th. The appeal was not filed until one day later. No response has been-made to the motion to dismiss. The motion is therefore sustained and the appeal dismissed and the cause remanded to the county court of Grady county with direction to enforce its judgment therein. Mandate to issue forthwith.


text:
    WALTER COFFER and BUCK NELSON v. STATE.
    No. A-980.
    Opinion Filed December 4, 1911.
    Appeal from District Court, Mayes County; T. L. Brown, Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Walter Coffer, was convicted at the June, 1910, term of the district court of Mayes county, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a period of five years. He has filed a motion in this court to dismiss his appeal. The motion is sustained, and his appeal dismissed. The appeal is continued as to Buck Nelson.


text:
    HENRY McDANIEL v. STATE.
    No. A-1147.
    Opinion Filed December 11, 1911.
    Appeal from District Court, LeFlore County; Malcolm E. Rosser, Judge.
    Henry McDaniel was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Tom W. Neal, for plainitff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was, by information filed in the district court of Pushmataha county on the 13th day of July, 1909, charged with grand larceny. A change óf venue was granted to the district court of LeFlore county. Upon his trial there had, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed his punishment at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of one year. In accordance with the verdict, on November 12, 1910, judgment and sentence was pronounced and entered. The record shows that notices of appeal were not served on the county attorney and cleric of the district court within the time required by law. Por this reason the Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion is well taken and is sustained. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.


text:
    G. W. COOK v. STATE.
    No. A-898.
    Opinion Filed November 26, 1911.
    Appeal from Kay County Court; Claude Duval, Judge.
    Herman S. Gurley, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

G. W. Cook, plaintiff in error, was convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquors with the intention of violating provisions of the prohibition law. The facts and questions of law are the same as in the case of G. W. Cook v. State, infra, for the reasons given in the opinion in that case the judgment is reversed.


text:
    G. C. BROWN v. STATE.
    Noc. A-868, A-869.
    Opinion Filed December 30, 1911.
    Appeals from Canadian County Court; II. L. Pogg, Judge.
    G. C. Brown was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law in two eases and appeals.
    Affirmed.

      Forrest & Sansom, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the state.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Canadian county of a violation of the prohibition law in two cases. May 25, 1910, he was sentenced to serve a term of six months in the county jail and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars in one, and to serve a term of thirty days in the county ail, and to pay a fine of fifty dollars in the other. To reverse these judgments appeals were taken. The only question presented in each case by the briefs was decided adversely to plaintiff in error's contention in another one of his cases, (G. C. Brown v. State, infra), decided at this term. On the authority of that case the judgments appealed from are hereby affirmed. \


text:
    JAMES HARKEY v. STATE.
    No. A-907.
    Opinion Filed December 30, 1911.
    Appeal from Kay County Court; Claude Duval, Judge.
    Herman S. Gurley, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with the intent to violate the provisions of the prohibition law. May 28, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, the defendant was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county 'jail and pay a fine of fifty dollars. To reverse this judgment-an appeal was taken. The state introduced but one witness, the agent of the Santa Pe system at Kaw City, who produced a freight delivery receipt and identified the signature thereto as that of the defendant. Over the defendant's objection the receipt was then introduced in evidence. The witness testified that he had no personal knowledge of the shipment except that he supposed that the drayman took it away; that he supposed the typewriting and printing on the receipt was done at Kansas City. The facts and issue in this case, and the assignments of error are the same as in the case of G. W. Cook v. State, infra, and present the same questions. For the reasons given in the opinion in that ease the judgment is reversed.


text:
    W. A. SMITH v. STATE.
    No. A-894.
    Opinion Filed December 30, 1911.
    Appeal from Kay County Court; Claude Duval, Judge.
    W. A. Smith was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Herman S. Gurley, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of selling whisky. No error of law appears and while the proof on the part of the prosecution consists of the testimony of a single witness, of doubtful credibility, it was the province of the jury to pass upon the weight and credibility of the evidence. The judgment is therefore affirmed.


text:
    J. BYLER v. STATE.
    No. A-906.
    Opinion Filed December 30, 1911.
    Appeal from Kay County Court; Claude Duval, Judge.
    Herman S. Gurley, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with the intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. May 28, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, the defendant was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. To reverse this judgment an appeal was taken. The state introduced but one witness, the agent of the Wells, Pargo Express Company, at Blackwell, who produced a copy of the waybill, and stated that the original waybill had been sent to the head office of the Wells, Fargo Express Company, in New York. Over the defendant’s objection, the copy was introduced as evidence, and the witness was permitted to testify to an explanation of the breviations thereon. The facts and issues in this ease and the assignments of error are the same as in the case of W. H. Adams v. State, infra, and present the same questions. Por the reasons given in the opinion in that case, the judgment is reversed.


author: DOYLE, J.

text:
    W. H. ADAMS v. STATE.
    No. A-905.
    Opinion Filed December 30, 1911.
    Appeal from Kay County Court; Claude Duval, Judge.
    Herman S. Gurley, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DOYLE, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with the intent to violate the provisions of the prohibition law. May 28, 1910, judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury and he was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in jail and pay a fine of fifty dollars. To reverse this judgment this appeal was taken. The state introduced but one witness, the agent of the Wells, Fargo Express Co., at Blackwell, who produced the copy of a waybill on which was written, “2B. L., W. H. Adams, Consignee”, delivered by O. H., received by W. H. Adams, and was permitted to testify that B. L. was supposed to stand for boxes of liquor. Three of such waybills were permitted to be introduced in evidence. On cross-examination the witness admitted that he had no personal knowledge of how much or what the package contained or of the delivery of the shipments. Among others the court gave the jury the following instruction:

“You are instructed that to prove an unlawful keeping or possession of liquors with the intent to sell or barter the same, it is not necessary or incumbent on the state to show a sale, an attempt to sell, or that the liquors were exposed or offered for sale, or that the liquors were owned by the defendant, but the unlawful purpose or intention is the essence of the offense and should be clearly made out to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”

There was no evidence introduced tending to prove 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 (sec. 4181 Snyder), shall constitute prima facie evidence of the intention to violate the provisions of the act. This instruction in effect informed the jury that possession alone is sufficient to show intent to sell or barter,' and places the burden on the defendant to explain his possession of such liquors. The criminal intent involved in the commission of the offense charged is the intent to sell, barter, give away, or otherwise furnish, and while quantity is a corroborative circumstance that may be considered by the jury in connection with other proof, possession in itself is insufficient to sustain a conviction. In order to convict where there is no proof of payment by the defendant of the special tax required by the liquor dealers of the United States, there must be evidence, either positive or presumptive, tending to prove the unlawful' intent. McCarthy v. State, infra. The testimony is wholly insufficient to support a conviction and the defendant’s motion to direct a verdict of not guilty should have been sustained. The judgment is therefore reversed.


text:
    GEORGE HINCHMAN v. STATE.
    No. A-908.
    Opinion Filed January 2, 1912.
    Appeal from Kay County Court; Claude Duval, Judge.
    George Hinchman was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law and appeals.
    Reversed.
    Herman S. Gurley, for plaintiff in error.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. On May 25, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. To reverse this judgment this appeal is taken. The state introduced but one witness) the station agent of the S'anta Fe railway at Kaw City, who produced two freight delivery receipts dated January 28th and February 5, 1910, eaeh for one cask of bottled liquor, and identified the signatures thereto as those of the defendant, which receipts, over the objection of the defendant, were admitted in evidence. He further testified that the records were not handled by him personally all the time in the office, and did not know of his own personal knowledge what the shipments contained; that the billing was all he had to go by. This was all the evidence introduced in the case. The defendant requested a peremptory instruction as follows: “The court instructs the jury to find the defendant, George Hinchman, not guilty of the offense charged.” The facts and issues in this case, and the assignments of error are the same as in the case of McCarthy v. State, infra, and present the same questions. For the reasons given in the opinion in that case, the judgment is reversed.


text:
    G. C. BROWN v. STATE.
    Nos. A-868, A-869.
    Opinion Filed January 2, 1912.
    Appeals from Canadian County Court; H. L. Fogg, Judge.
    G. C. Brown was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law in two cases, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Forrest & Sansom, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Canadian county of a violation of the prohibition law in two cases. May 25, 1910, he was sentenced to serve a term of six months in the county jail and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars in one, and to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay of fine of fifty dollars in the other. To reverse these judgments appeals were taken. The only question presented in each case by the briefs was decided adversely to plaintiff in error’s contention in another one' of his cases, (G. C. Brown v. State, infra), decided at this term. On the authority of that ease the judgments appealed from are hereby affirmed.


text:
    R. W. ROCHFORD v. STATE.
    Nos. A-910, A-911.
    Opinion Filed January 2, 1912.
    Appeal from Kay County Court; Claude Duval, Judge.
    R. ~W. Rockford was convicted of violations of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Reversed.
    Herman S. Gurley, for plaintiff in error.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted on two indictments returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county. Each indictment charges that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with the intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. On May 28, 1910, judgment and sentence was entered in each ease. In each case the state introduced but one witness, the agent of the Santa Ee system at Kaw City, who produced the freight delivery receipt, and identified the signature thereto as that of the defendant. Over the defendant’s objection the receipt was introduced in evidence. The witness testified that he had no personal knowledge of the shipment. The facts and issues in these cases, and the assignments of error are the same as in the case of G. W. Cook v. State, infra, and present the same questions. Eor the reasons given in the opinion in that ease, the judgments are reversed.,


text:
    LEE HERMAN v. STATE.
    No. A-909.
    Opinion Filed January 3, 1912.
    Appeal from Kay County Court; Claude^ Duval, Judge.
    Herman S. Gurley, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have m his possession intoxicating' liquor with intent to violate the provisions of the prohibition law. May 28, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, defendant was sentenced to serve a term of sixty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars. To reverse the judgment this appeal was taken. The state introduced but one witness, the agent of the Santa Ee system at Kaw City, who produced a freight delivery receipt signed by the defendant. On cross-examination he testified that as agent he should have a bill of lading on file, but he did not know what had become of the bill of lading, for the shipment receipted for, and that all he knew about the shipment was by the form it was billed. This was all the testimony in the case. Defendant requested a peremptory instruction to acquit. The facts and issues in this case are the same as in the case of G. W. Cook v. State, infra. Eor the reasons given in the opinion in that case the judgment is reversed.


text:
    J. L. PITT v. STATE.
    No. A-913.
    Opinion Filed January 3, 1912.
    Appeal from Kay County Court; Claude Duval, Judge.
    Herman S. Gurley, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with intent to violate provisions of the prohibition law. May 28, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, the defendant was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. The state introduced but one witness, the agent of the St. Louis and San Franciseo Railroad at Peckham, who produced several freight delivery receipts signed by J. L. Pitt. This was all the evidence in the case. The question in this ease was the same as in the case of Adams v. State, infra, and present the same question. For the reasons given in the opinion in that case, the judgment is reversed.


text:
    D. I. GROSS v. STATE.
    No. A-912.
    Opinion Filed January 3, 1912.
    Appeal from Kay County Court; Claude Duval,.Judge.
    Herman S. Gurley, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment returned in the district court and duly transferred to the county court of Kay county, which charged that he did have in his possession intoxicating liquor with intent to violate provisions of the - prohibition law. June 1, 1910, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, the defendant was sentenced' to serve a term of ninety days in the county jail and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars. To reverse this judgment an appeal was taken. ' The indictment is without indorsement of the name of any witness. Motion to set aside, and objection to, the introduction of testimony on this, ground was overruled and exception allowed. The state introduced but one witness, the agent of the Santa Pe system at Newkirk, who produced an order of delivery signed “D. I. Gross”, and stated that he could not 'say whether the defendant signed it or not, which was admitted in evidence over the defendant's objection, and also introduced a freight delivery receipt signed by J. E. Hancock, where one B. I. Gross was consignee; which was admitted in evidence over the defendant's objection. Several other freight delivery receipts signed by J. E. Hancock were permitted to be introducecl in evidence. He further testified that it was customary to have the bill of lading issued on each shipment surrendered when shipment is delivered, but that he did not receive any bills of lading from these shipments from the drayman, Hancock. The defendant requested a peremptory instruction to acquit. The facts and issues in this ease are the same as in the case of G. W. Cook v. State, infra, and present the same questions. For the reasons given in the opinion in that case, the judgment is reversed.


text:
    VICTOR BONHAM v. STATE.
    No. A-1054.
    Opinion Filed January 3, 1912.
    Appeal from Coal County Court; R. H. Wells, Judge.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Victor Bonham, plaintiff in error, was eonvieted in the county court of Coal county on an information which charged the offense of having possession of intoxicating liquor with the intention of selling the same. January 27, 1911, judgment was entered. When the ease was called on the assignment of this term the Attorney General moved in open court to affirm for failure to. prosecute. No briefs have been filed and no appearance made on behalf of plaintiff in error. The motion to affirm is therefore sustained and the cause remanded with direction to enforce the judgment therein.


text:
    A. L. RHOADS v. STATE.
    No. A-870.
    Opinion Filed January 3, 1912.
    Appeal from Canadian County Court; II. L. Fogg, Judge.
    R. B. Forrest, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

A. L. Rhoads, plaintiff in error, was eonvieted in the county court of Canadian county, and was sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars. The judgment was entered May 25, 1910. An examination of the record fails to disclose any prejudicial error. All the questions raised by the petition have heretofore been settled by the decisions of this court. Finding no prejudicial error in the proceedings had, the judgment of the county court of Canadian county is affirmed, and the cause remanded thereto, with direction to enforce the judgment and sentence.


text:
    G. A. JOHNSTON v. STATE.
    Nos. A-1042, A-1043, A-1047.
    Opinion Filed January 4, 1912.
    Appeals from Coal County Court; E. H. Wells, Judge.
    G. A. Johnston was convicted of violations of the prohibitory law, and appeals. Three eases.
    Affirmed.
    Charles T. Gibson, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, and B. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

No material errors appearing from the records, the judgments of the trial court are hereby affirmed.


text:
    J. W. GOINS v. STATE.
    No. A-1001.
    Opinion Filed January 4, 1912.
    Appeal from Payne County Court; P. D. Mitchell, Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

J. W. Goins, plaintiff in error, was convicted of a violation of the ordinance of the city of Stillwater, prohibiting the possession of intoxicating liquor with the unlawful intention of disposing of the same, and was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the city jail and pay a fine of fifty dollars. The judgment and sentence was entered on November 28, 1910. To reverse this judgment an appeal was perfected. The plaintiff in error has filed a written statement requesting that his appeal be dismissed. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Mandate to issue forthwith.


text:
    JOHN BEGLEY v. STATE.
    No. A-1131.
    Opinion Filed January 4, 1912.
    Appeal from Stephens County Court; W. H. Admire, Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

John Begley, plaintiff in error, was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law and on January 26, 1911, was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail, and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars. An appeal was attempted to be taken by filing in this court on May 5, 1911, a petition in error with case-made, which was beyond the limit of time allowed by law to take an appeal. Wherefore this court did not acquire jurisdiction; for which reason the attempted appeal is hereby dismissed. Mandate to issue forthwith.


text:
    W. E. WHITE v. STATE.
    No. A-1072.
    Opinion Filed January 4, 1912.
    Appeal from Creek County Court; Josiah G. Davis, Judge.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the, State.
   PER CURIAM.

W. E. White, plaintiff in error, was convicted in the county court of Creek county of a violation of -the prohibition law and was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of one hundred dollars. December 12, 1910, judgment and sentence was entered. To reverse this judgment an appeal was taken. When the case was this day called on the regular assignment for final submission the Attorney General moved to affirm for failure to proseeute the appeal. No briefs have been filed and no appearance made on behalf of the plaintiff in error. The appeal having been abandoned. The motion to affirm is hereby sustained. Mandate to issue forthwith.


author: FURMAN, P. J.

text:
    J. W. JUSTUS v. STATE.
    No. A-1025.
    Opinion Filed January 5, 1912.
    Appeal from McCurtain County Court; T. J. Barnes, Judge.
    J. W. Justus was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Armstrong & Etheredge and C. M. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   FURMAN, P. J.

Under all the circumstances disclosed by the record in this case we think the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

ARMSTRONG and DOYLE, JJ., 'concur.


text:
    SUSAN LASALLAS v. STATE.
    No. A-1108.
    January 5, 1912.
   Affirmed, orally,


text:
      FRANK MOBLEY v. STATE.
    No. A-1018.
    Opinion Filed January 5, 1912.
    Appeal from Jackson County Court; W. T. McConnell, Judge.
    Frank Mobley was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    H. E. Johnson and P. K. Morrill, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Judgment was rendered in the trial court on the 20th day of December, 1910, at which time the trial court allowed sixty days in which to file the appeal in this court. The appeal was filed on the 20th day of February, 1911, more than sixty days after the rendition of the judgment. The Attorney General has moved to dismiss the appeal on this ground. The motion is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.


text:
    CHARLES MILLION v. STATE.
    No. A-1014.
    Opinion Filed January 5, 1912.
    Appeal from Creek County Court; Josiah G. Davis, Judge.
    Charles Million was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Thompson & Smith, for plaintiff in error.’
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

A careful examination of the record discloses no error sufficiently prejudicial to justify a reversal of this judgment. It is therefore affirmed.


text:
    ANGELO POZZINI v. STATE.
    No. A-1012.
    Opinion Filed January 5, 1912.
    Appeal from Coal County Court; B. II. Wells, Judge.
    Angelo Pozzini was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    C. M. Threadgill, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Coal county on the 21st day of November, 1910, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell, and thereafter on the 22nd day of November was sentenced by the court to pay a fine of two hundred dollars and serve thirty days in the county jail. The appeal was filed in this court on the 9th day of February, 1911, more than sixty days after the rendition of the judgment. The Attorney General has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the same was not filed within the time allowed by law. The motion is well taken, and is sustained. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.


text:
    RED CANADY v. STATE.
    No. A-1126.
    Opinion Filed January 5, 1912.
    Appeal from Pottawatomie County Court; Ross F. Lockeridge, Judge.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Red Canady, plaintiff in error, was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law. March 7th, 1911, he was sentenced to serve a term of sixty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of three hundred dollars. An appeal was taken by filing in this court on May 2nd, .1911, a petition in error with case-made. When the case was called for final submission on the assignment, the Attorney General moved in open court to affirm for failure to prosecute. No briefs have been filed and no appearance made in this court on plaintiff in error’s behalf. The appeal having been abandoned, the motion to affirm is hereby sustained. Mandate to issue forthwith.


text:
    R. L. NELSON v. STATE.
    No. A-1127.
    Opinion Filed January 5, 1912.
    Appeal from Muskogee Superior Court; Farrar L. McCain, Judge.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

R. L. Nelson, plaintiff in error, was convicted in the superior court of Muskogee county for the crime of selling intoxicating liquor, and was, on January 4, 1911, sentenced to serve a term of four months in the county jail and to pay a fine of four hundred dollars. To reverse this judgment an appeal was taken by filing in this court on May 4, 1911, a petition in error with ease-made. When' the case was called on the regular assignment for final submission the Attorney General moved to affirm for failure to prosecute the appéal. No briefs have been filed and no appearance made of behalf of plaintiff in error in this court. The appeal having been abandoned the motion to affirm is sustained. Mandate to issue forthwith.


text:
    ED. THOMASON v. STATE.
    No. A-1020.
    Opinion Filed January 6, 1912.
    Appeal from Alfalfa County Court; F. M. Gustin, Judge.
    Ed. Thomason was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    A. J. Stevens, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen'., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Alfalfa county, sitting at Cherokee, on a charge of furnishing intoxicating liquar, and his punishment fixed at a fine of one hundred dollars and confinement in the county jail for 'a period of forty days. The case is well briefed and was orally argued. Upon a careful examination of the record we are impelled to the conclusion that plaintiff in error did not have a fair and impartial trial as contemplated by law. The judgment is reversed and a new trial awarded.


text:
    J. C. HAMILTON v. STATE.
    No. A-1027.
    Opinion Filed January 6, 1912.
    Appeal from Johnston County Court; Nick Wolfe, Judge.
    J. C. Hamilton was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Young & Stobaugh, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


text:
    E. M. COWHERD v. STATE.
    No. A-1093.
    Opinion Filed January 6, 1912.
    Appeal from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, Judge.
    Crump & Curd, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

E. M. Cowherd, plaintiff in error, was convicted in the superior court of .Muskogee county of the offense of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with the intent to sell or otherwise dispose of the same, and was, on February 4, 1911, sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of two hundred dollars. To reverse this judgment an appeal was taken. The- Attorney General concedes by confession of error that the judgment should be reversed. The testimony tending to show possession is insufficient. There was also another error committed which requires a reversal. In submitting the ease to the jury the court charged in concluding an instruction given: “Unless the defendant proves by a preponderance of the testimony that he had no intention of selling the liquor found in his possession.” It is manifest that under this instruction the trial court placed the burden on the defendant to show by a preponderance of the testimony that he had no intention of violating provisions of the prohibition law. This instruction alone is sufficient for the reversal of this case. The confession of error is approved and sustained. Wherefore the judgment is reversed.


text:
    G. A. JOHNSTON v. STATE.
    No. A-814.
    Opinion Filed January 11, 1912.
    Appeal from Coal County Court; R. H. Wells, Judge.
    Charles T. Gibson, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

G. A. Johnston was convicted in the county court of Coal county of a violation of the prohibition law, and was on May 2, 1910, sentenced to serve a term of four months in the county jail and to pay a fine of four hundred and fifty dollars. From which judgment he appeals. From an examination of the record our conclusion is that this appeal is without merit. The judgment of the lower'court is therefore affirmed.


text:
    H. M. PERKINS v. STATE.
    No. A-1495.
    Opinion Filed January 11, 1912.
    Appeal from Oklahoma County Court; John W. Hayson, Judge.
    F. W. Fischer, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

H. M. Perkins, plaintiff in error, was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law and September 27, 1911, was sentenced to serve a term of ninety days in the county jail and to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars. An appeal was properly perfected. January 9, 1912, his counsel of record filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion to dismiss is sustained and the cause remanded to the county court of Oklahoma county with direction to enforce the judgment therein.


text:
      M. V. McDANIEL v. STATE.
    No. A-781.
    Opinion Filed January 11, 1912.
    Appeal from Craig County Court; Theo. D. B. Frear, Judge.
    James S. Davenport, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith O. Matson, Asst. Atty. G-en., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

M. V. McDaniel, plaintiff in error, was convicted, on an indictment the county court of Craig county, which charged the unlawful sale of one pint of whisky. May 10, 1909, upon arraignment he entered a plea of guilty as charged, and the court appointed May 26th as the time for pronouncing judgment and sentence. At which time the case was continued for sentence and was so continued from term to term until' March 31, 1910, at which time the defendant appeared and filed a. motion to withdraw his plea of guilty heretofore entered and to substitute therefor a plea of not guilty, which motion was by the court overruled, and thereupon the court sentenced the defendant to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of two hundred' and fifty dollars and costs. From which judgment the defendant appealed by petition in error with transcript attached. The identical and the only question presented' on this appeal is the same as that in the-case of Jenkins v. State, infra. For the reasons given in the opinion in-that ease the judgment of the county court of Craig county is affirmed-


text:
    J. A. CARMACK and JOHN PRICE v. STATE.
    No. A-822.
    Opinion Filed January 11, 1912.
    Appeal from Coal County Court; R. II. Wells, Judge.
    J. A. Carmack and John Price were convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and appeal.
    Affirmed.
    C. M. Threadgill, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs in error were convicted of having-possession of intoxicating liquors away, and otherwise furnish the same contrary to law, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury were on May 12, 1910, each sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in jail and to pay a fine of fifty dollars.. An examination of the record discloses, sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and that the law questions presented are without merit. The judgment is therefore affirmed.


author: Hon. Lee Cruce, Governor of Oklahoma:

text:
    STATE v. GOVERNOR BROWN.
    Opinion Filed January 11, 1912.
    In response to a communication submitted by the Governor, the following opinion is submitted by Armstrong, J.:
   Hon. Lee Cruce, Governor of Oklahoma:

transmitting a transcript of the record and evidence taken in the trial of the cause of the State of Oklahoma, plaintiff, v. Governor Brown, defendant, wherein said defendant was charged and convicted of the crime of murder and his punishment fixed at death, received. Replying to that portion of your communication wherein you say: “X shall be glad to know, at your convenience, whether these proceedings have been in accordance with the laws of the state, and whether or not, in your opinion, the judgment of this court should stand,” we beg to advise that we have carefully examined the entire record, including transcript of the proceedings and evidence, and find that all the rights of the defendant were properly preserved by the district court of Logan county, and the punishment fixed by the jury. The

we find no legal reason why the judgment of the trial court should not stand.

participating.


author: PER CURIAM. of the district

text:
    DOCK CRUNK v. STATE.
    No. A-933.
    Opinion filed January 11, 1912.
    Appeal from District Court, Stephens County; Prank M. Bailey, Judge.
    Dock Crunk was convicted of larceny of domestic animals, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Womack & Brown, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM. of the district

Plaintiff in error was convicted at the April, 1910, court of of domestic animals, and his punishment fixed at one year in the state penitentiary. The appeal was filed in this court- on the 7th day of July, 1910. No briefs have been filed and no appearance made for oral argument on behalf of plaintiif in error. The Attorney General has moved to affirm the judgment for want of prosecution. The motion is sustained and the judgment is affirmed. The clerk will issue the mandate forthwith.


text:
    G. A. JOHNSTON v. STATE.
    Nos. A-814, A-1051, A-1052, A-1053.
    Opinion Filed January 11, 1912.
    Appeal from Coal County Court; E. H. Wells, Judge.
    G. A. Johnston was convicted of violations of the prohibitory law, and appeals. Four eases.
    Affirmed.
    Charles T. Gibson, for plaintiff, in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew Wood, of counsel), for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

No material errors appearing from the records, the judgments of the. trial court are hereby affirmed.


text:
    W. A. SCOTT v. STATE.
    No. A-1137.
    Opinion Filed January 11, 1912.
    Appeal from Caddo County Court; C. Eoss Hume, Judge.
    W. A. Scott was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Bristow & McFadyen, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


text:
    JOHN WILSON v. STATE.
    No. A-1143.
    Opinion Filed January 11, 1912.
    Appeal from Cleveland County Court; F. B. Swank, Judge.
    John Wilson was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    B. F. Wolf, for plaintiff in error.
    Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.