Case ID: f2d_34/html/0399-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COYLE v. UNITED STATES.
    Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    September 3, 1929.
    No. 17.
    J. Q. A. Harrod and Laynie W. Harrod, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff in. error.
    Roy St. Lewis, U. S. Dist. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Herbert K. Hyde, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.
    Before PHILLIPS and McDERMOTT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal challenges the sufficiency of the information, upon, the sole ground that it did not sufficiently identify the offense charged. The information in part alleged that the defendant, on January 22,1927, in Oklahoma county, in the Western district of the state of Oklahoma, did unlawfully sell and deliver to Orival Snook intoxicating liquor, to wit, whisky. In the lower court, the attack on the information was by motion in arrest of judgment. The information alleged the name of the purchaser. This sufficiently identified and ear-marked the offense. Swafford v. United States (C. C. A.) 25 F.(2d) 581; Davis v. United States (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 814; Jarl v. United States (C. C. A.) 19 F.(2d) 891.

The appeal is frivolous, and the ease is affirmed, with direction that the mandate of this court be issued forthwith.