Case Name: STATE v. LONDON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1921-02-01
Citations: 99 Or. 189
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. LONDON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 189–191

Head Matter:
Submitted on briefs on behalf of appellant January 14,
affirmed February 1, 1921.
STATE v. LONDON.
(195 Pac. 344.)
Intoxicating Liquors—Complaint for Sale Held Sufficient Though, not Specifying Details.
1. In view of Section 2224'—58, Or. L., eómplaint charging that defendant, on the 9th of July, 1919, in the county of Crook and State of Oregon, unlawfully, wrongfully and maliciously sold intoxicating liquor contrary to statute, etc., held sufficient, though not describing the kind or quantity of liquor sold, the name of the purchaser, or a description of the premises.
From Crook ^ T. E. J. Duffy, Judge.
In Banc.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of selling intoxicating liquor, and from a judgment thereon, he prosecutes this appeal.
Affirmed.
Submitted on briefs on behalf of appellant by Mr. W. P. Myers and Mr. C. T. Terril, his attorneys.
For the State there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Willard H. Wiriz, District Attorney.

Opinion:
BENSON, J.
The bill of exceptions was stricken from the record in this case, for the reason that the same was not settled and determined in the. manner provided by law: State v. London, 97 Or. 423 (192 Pac. 489).
There being no bill of exceptions, the only assignment of error remaining to be considered is the defendant's contention that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime. The complaint, omitting the formal parts, reads thus:
"The said George B. London, on the ninth day of July, A. D. 1919, in the county of Crook and State of Oregon, then and there being, did then and there unlawfully, wrongfully and maliciously sell intoxicating liquor, contrary to the statutes in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Oregon."
Defendant's criticism of this complaint is to the effect that it is so lacking in details as to be insufficient to identify the particular offense sought to be charged. This criticism would doubtless be a valid one if it were not for the provisions of Section 2224—58, Or. L., which expressly relieves the prosecuting officer from alleging, in indictments for this offense, the kind or quantity of liquor sold, the name of, the purchaser, or a description of the premises where sold.
The complaint satisfies the requirements of the statute upon which it is based, and the judgment is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.