Case ID: okla-crim_11/html/0380-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ARMSTRONG, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JACK KENDRICK v. STATE.
    No. A-2217.
    Opinion Filed March 10, 1915.
    (146 Pac. 727.)
    INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Illegal Sale — Aiding and Abetting. A person who acts as go-between in purchasing intoxicating liquor at an illegal sale thereof, and who thereby aids and abets in the consummation of the sale, is punishable as a principal offender under the statutes.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Appeal from County Court, Jefferson County; J. M. Adams, Judge.
    
    Jack Kendrick was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Bridges & Vertrees, for plaintiff in error.
    
      C. J. Davenport and R. McMillan, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
   ARMSTRONG, J.

The plaintiff in error, Jack Kendrick, was convicted at the January, 1914, term of the county court of Jefferson comity on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and .his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days and a fine of $50.

The material facts, as testified to by the prosecuting witness, and admitted by the plaintiff in error, are substantially as follows: Claud Jay testified that he was in Waurika about the 6th day of December, 1913; that he met the plaintiff in error, Jack Kendrick, and asked him if he knew where he could get some whisky. He said that he did. He (Jay) then gave the plaintiff in error $5 in currency and told him to get a pint. Thej'' agreed upon a place to meet within a short time. Witness went to this place and there met the plaintiff in error, who delivered to him the pint of whisky and returned him all the money except $1.35. The whisky cost a dollar, but the plaintiff in error did not have correct change to pay the thirty-five cents.

Updn the authority of Buchanan v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 645, 112 Pac. 32, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83, and Cantrell v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 304, 135 Pac. 1158, the judgment is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., concurs. FURMAN, J., absent.