Case ID: kan_29/html/0502-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State of Kansas v. E. Olferman.
    Olferman was tried at the April Term, 1882, of the district court of Shawnee county, on an information of twenty-one counts, each charging an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. The defendant moved the court to require the plaintiff to elect upon what one count it would proceed to trial. This motion was overruled. Thereupon the defendant moved the court to require the plaintiff to set forth in the information a statement of the facts constituting each offense charged therein, in plain and concise language, and to make the information direct and certain as regards each of the offenses charged therein, which motion was overruled. Thereupon the defendant moved the court to quash the information, for the reasons that there is more than one offense charged; that the offense in each count is not clearly set forth in plain and concise language without repetition; that the information does not charge a public offense; that none of the offenses charged are stated with such a degree of certainty that the court can pronounce judgment upon conviction according to the right of the case. This motion was overruled. Upon the conclusion of the. evidence for the state, the defendant-moved the court to require the plaintiff to elect upon what offenses proved it would rely, and to state what offenses proved, or claimed to be proved, it would rely upon as to -each count in the information. This motion was overruled. Defendant was found guilty on the first four counts, and fined one hundred dollars on each, from which judgment he apy peals. This court, at its March session, 1883, filed the opinion, infra.
    
    
      Case- & Curtis, and J. G. Waters, for appellant.
    
      A. S. Vanee, county attorney, for The State.
   Per Curiam:

The judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial, on the authority of The State v. Schweiter, 27 Kas. 499, sixth paragraph of syllabus.