The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1909-05-18
Interesting Decision
In Liquor Appeal Case ;


on the Ssst Of DcccmfcE isOTsa
prosecution was instltuscd against
NNormap stuais, Arthur stnrgIs and
Walter slures, d. information. chars
sns them with iht commission Of two
separate ans distinct oGenses. viz.
isi SELLING inloSicailng liquors. Ia
cerlala larties whose nancu were un
known. ads With transporting and
conveying intoxicating liquors from
one place IN the state to another place
ia the state. but not designating such
places The case being called for trial
The defendants Rssalled the lnforma
&iDn upon the ground of duplicilY
in thar y attempted 10 charge two Of
fenses based ap0n separate and dis
tlnci acts Of the defendants. This
motion was. By the court, overruled
and the defendants then obtained a
severance. walter sturgis was plac-
ed upon trial first. Norman sturgis
was placed upon the trial and found
guilty By the jury. A motion for d
new trial was filed and oYerruIed. ami
lhe case was appealed TO the Trim
iual Court Of Appeals, where the case
was reversed and remanded in an
opinion written By Presiding Judge
Furman
SY)Ishns Of the Opinion
First iaf Assl6nments os error
which art GDl presented fully In the
briefs bf counsel for the appellant
viii be- tleAted as abandoned by thia
court unless they relate to some fun.
dnmentt question.
tbl II rs tho policy Of this court to
PASS upon every material question IN.
rolged IN a case. which Is IN good
faith properly submitted for decision.
The sooner questions Of practice are
settled lb criminal cases the better
Il will be for the administration OF
Justice II Oklahoma. Al present
these questions are IN a state Of ut
tor caninaon. This " especially true
n prosecution for tho violation OF
the prohibition law.
Gccond--tal An indictment or lnfor
mailon muRi charge but one 0fionae
bui when the same acts may constl
tnte different offenses or the proof
may Be uncertain as to which of two
or more oflenaes the accused may be
guilty the different 0ffenses may be-
SET forth III separate counts IN the
same Indictment or Information Bat.
IN such cases the information or IN.
dicimeni must show upon lts face
that the separate counts all refer %
one anH me same transaction. AS 10
how this should be done, see opinion
fb) Senlng Intoxicating liquor. anu
shlpping Or conveying such liquor
rom one place IN the state 10 Hns.
ether place III the State. arc separate
and distinct acts and cAnnOl be Join.
81 IN the same Information or lndict.
mont
tcl Az Information Tor transporting
y conveying Intoxicating liquors from
ana nlate IN this state to another
nlace ID the state must designate the
place from which and to which said
liquors wefe 10 transported or con
Vnyed,
Thifd ial Il Is not error Tor the
county attorney aa a part Of bis open.
sng statement oi case 70 the Jury
% iead the Information aud the aifid
Rli upon which # Us based
lhi Nothing said ~ an opening
i3iement e 70 be taken By the jury
..a evidence b. the case. and Il coun-
~ ief me deieaae have any appre.
oenslona upan ibis subject be should
seqaesi lhe court 10 sa instruct the
Jury
Fourla tal The principles OF law
applicable 70 and enforced IN civil
.su..sA. -. -. -.