Case Name: VINCENT KERRIEL et al. v. STATE
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1917-04-19
Citations: 13 Okla. Crim. 298
Docket Number: No. A-2605
Parties: VINCENT KERRIEL et al. v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Criminal Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 298–300

Head Matter:
VINCENT KERRIEL et al. v. STATE.
No. A-2605.
Opinion Filed April 19, 1917.
(164 Pac. 136.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Unlawful Sale — Sufficiency of Evidence. Evidence, in a prosecution for the unlawful -sale and delivery of intoxicating liquor, held insufficient to justify a conviction.
Appeal from County Court, Coal County; P. E. Wilhelm, Judge.
Vincent Kerriel and Mary Kerriel were convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and they bring error.
Reversed.
George Trice, for ■ plaintiffs in error.
S. P. Freelmg, Atty. Gen., and R. McMillan, Asst. Atty.. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs in error were informed against, tried, and convicted in the county court of- Coal county ón a charge that they "did unlawfully sell and deliver to Sim McGee, certain intoxicating liquor, to wit, a drink commonly called 'Choctaw Beer.' " In pursuance of the verdict they were each sentenced to be confined in the county jail for 30 days and to pay a fine of $50. From the judgments they appeal.
In the view we have taken of the disposition necessary to be made of this case it is neither important nor necessary to. consider more than one of the questions presented, and that one is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain'the verdict.
Sim McGee was the only witness called by the state.-• He testified that he was a full-blood Choctaw, and that some time in March he went to the defendants' place. He was asked if he bought any beer from the defendants, and he answered "that he bought some Choc;" that he bought 25 cents worth. He was then asked:
"Q. Who gave it to you? A. She did. Q. Who did you pay ? . A. Paid her."
On cross-examination he said he had been in jail four times, and was drunk at that time.
The defendant Vincent Kerriel testified that this Indian came to his home one morning and was very drunk, and asked his wife for something to eat and' something to drink, and she put him out of the house, and he said he was going to have her arrested:
Mary Kerriel testified that she had to drive this little Indian away from her house two or three different times; that the last time she drove him away he said, "I go tell Pát Wilhelm and get you arrested;" that she never sold or gave him any Choctaw beer.
This was substantially all the evidence in the case.
On a consideration of the evidence we are of opinion, as a matter of law, that the evidence was insufficient to justify a conviction. The judgment is therefore reversed.