Case ID: ohio-st_25/html/0548-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Grunkemeyer v. The State of Ohio.
    An information charging the defendant with furnishing intoxicating liquor to a minor, without alleging a sale of the liquor, or that it was “to he drank hy such minor,” is not a good information cither under the act of 1854 (S. & O. 1431, sees. 2 and 9), or under section 1 of the act of 1866 (S. & S. 748); and the want of these averments can not he supplied hy any intendment or supposed rules of practice in the Police Court.
    Error to the Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
    Grunkemeyer was convicted and sentenced, in the police court of Cincinnati, on an information charging that he had “furnished” a glass of intoxicating liquor to a minor. The information did not allege a sale of the liquor to the minor, or that the liquor was furnished “to be drank by such minor.” On petition in error to the Common Pleas, the judgment of the Police Court was affirmed, and it is now sought to reverse the judgment of affirmance, among other things, on the ground of the alleged insufficiency of the information.
    
      C. H. Blackburn, for plaintiff in error.
    
      John Little, attorney-general, for the state.
   By the Court.

The information charges no offense known to the law. It neither alleges a sale of the liquor, which is necessary, in order to make it a good information under the act of 1854 (S. & O. 1431, secs. 2, 9), nor does it allege that the liquor so furnished was “ to be drank ” by the minor, which is equally necessary, in order to make it good under the act of 1866 (S. & S. 748, sec. 1). These averments are essential, and can not be supplied by any intendment or supposed rules of practice in the Police Court.

Judgment reversed.