Case ID: okla-crim_8/html/0525-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FURMAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GUS WARD v. STATE.
    No. A-1482.
    Opinion Filed January 18, 1913.
    (128 Pac. 1104.)
    INTOXICATING- LIQUORS — Admissibility of Evidence — Internal Revenue License. Before a certified copy of the United States internal revenue collector’s record, showing that a license had been issued to a certain party to conduct the business of retail liquor dealer, is admissible in evidence against a defendant charged with a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, there must be some evidence showing that the defendant is the person to whom su'ch license was issued, or that he was .eo associated with such person as to connect him with such license.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Appeal from Oklahoma County Court; John W. Hayson, Judge.
    
    Gus Ward was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals
    Reversed and remanded.
    
      Giddings & Giddings, for appellant.
    
      Smith C. Matson and B. G. Spilman„ Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
   FURMAN, J.

Appellant was prosecuted under the name of Gus Ward. There was no evidence that his name was not as charged in the information. The presumption of law therefore is that Gus was the given name of appellant.

Upon the trial of this cause the state introduced in evidence a certified copy of a United States internal revenue license issued to J. G. Ward to conduct the business of retail liquor dealer in the city of Oklahoma. To the introduction of this evidence counsel for appellant objected and excepted to the action of the court in overruling the same. There was no testimony that Gus Ward and J. G. Ward were one and the same person, or that Gus Ward was in any manner connected with J. G. Ward. In the absence of such testimony this certificate was clearly inadmissible. As it was material, and directly involved a vital question in this case, its admissibility in evidence was reversible error.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and DOYUE, J, concur.