Case Name: STATE v. COILE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1915-06-07
Citations: 137 La. 673
Docket Number: No. 21170
Parties: STATE v. COILE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 673–673

Head Matter:
(69 South. 90)
No. 21170.
STATE v. COILE.
(June 7, 1915.
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1915.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION &wkey;>121 — Bill of Particulars.
One accused of selling intoxicating liquors without a license is not entitled to • have the name of the buyer furnished him in. a bill of particulars.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 316-320; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;121.]
2. Criminal Law <@=>1128 — Appeal—Statements in Brief.
On appeal from a conviction for the sale of intoxicating liquor without a license, the Supreme Court cannot consider statements as to the credibility of witnesses for the prosecution which appear only in the brief, not in the record.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2951-2953; Dec. Dig. <©=> 1128.]
Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Parish, of Bossier; J. N. Sandlin, Judge.
J. M. Coile was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Edwin W. Doran, of Benton, for appellant. Ruffin G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., Thomas W. Robertson, Dist. Atty. (G. A. Gondran, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
The accused, charged with having sold intoxicating liquors without a license, called for a bill of particulars that should set forth the date and place of the sale, the hind and quantity of the liquors, and the name of the person to whom sold. All these particulars were furnished him, except the name of the person to whom the liquors were sold. To the latter he was not entitled. State v. Munlin, 133 La. 60, 62 South. 351.
In the brief the statement is made that the accused was convicted upon the testimony of the person to whom the liquors were sold, and that it has been found out since the trial that these persons were unreliable witnesses; and it is said that by not furnishing the names of these persons the prosecution deprived the accused of his right to impeach these witnesses.
This court cannot consider statements of facts appearing in the brief only, not in the record.
Judgment affirmed.