Case ID: ind_50/html/0021-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pettit, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stein v. The State.
    Liqtjob Law.—Act of1873.—Indictment—In an indictment, under tie liquor law of 1873, for selling intoxicating liquor on Sunday, to be drank on the premises where sold, it was not necessary to allege whether the defendant had or had not a permit.
    Erom the Marion Criminal Circuit Court,
    
      JET. W. Hamngton and H. Francisco, for appellant,
    (7, A. BusJdrJc, Attorney General, and J¿. D. Doyle, for the State,
   Pettit, C. J.

This was an indictment for selling liquor on Sunday, to be drank in the house where sold. The only ground urged for the reversal of the judgment is the supposed insufficiency of the indictment in not alleging that the defendant had or had not a permit; for which omission it is claimed the motion to quash should have prevailed.

A majority of the court feel clear, and hold, that the indictment is good, and that it was not error to overrule the motion to quash it. Crone v. The State, 49 Ind. 538.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.