Case Name: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. T. M. Wolff, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1870-10
Citations: 46 Mo. 584
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. T. M. Wolff, Appellant.
Judges: The other judges concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 584–584

Head Matter:
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. T. M. Wolff, Appellant.
1. Criminal law— Information for selling intoxicating liquors — Allegata and •probata. — Where an information for selling intoxicating liquors in quantities less than ten gallons, charged that the sales wore made “to A. and divers other persons to informant unknown,” and the evidence showed sales to other parties, hut none to A., the variance between the pleadings and proofs was immaterial.
•Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.
Davis & Bowman, for appellant.
J. P. Colcord, and H. B. Johnson, Attorney-General, for respondent.

Opinion:
'CüRRiER, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant was proceeded against in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, by information, for selling intoxicating liquors in quantities less than ten gallons. The information charges that the sales were made to one William Ingersoll and to " divers other persons whose names were to the affiant (complainant) unknown." There was no proof of any sale to Inger-soll, but the evidence tended to show the fact of sales to other parties. It is objected that there is a fatal variance between the allegations and proofs. This objection seems to be founded upon the assumption that it is not alleged that the names of the "divers other persons" mentioned in the complaint were unknown .to the complainant.. That fact is distinctly averred, as a recurrence to the complaint will show. The variance between the pleadings and proofs was immaterial. (2 Whart. Am. Crim. Law, § 2443-4.)
Let the judgment be affirmed.
The other judges concur.