Jones v. State, 182 P. 907 (Okla. Crim. App. 1919). · Go Syfert
Jones v. State, 182 P. 907 (Okla. Crim. App. 1919). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Oberly v. Harris (okla, 1914-10-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1908 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1908 1967 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Oberly v. Harris
Okla. · 1914 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wedd v. Gates, 15 Okla. 602 , 82 Pac. 808 ; McMurtry v. Byrd et al., 23 Okla. 597 , 101 Pac. 1117 ; Court of Honor v. Wallace, 23 Okla. 734 , 102 Pac. 111 ; John v. Paullin, 24 Okla. 642 , 106 Pac. 838 .
cited Cited "see" McMurtry v. Byrd
Okla. · 1909 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wedd v. Gates et al., 15 Okla. 602 , 82 Pac. 808 ; Wal ton et al. v. Williams et al., 5 Okla. 642 , 49 Pac. 1022 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tom Jones
v.
State.
No. A-3097..
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
Mar 11, 1919.
182 P. 907
1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 119
Fred W. Kopplin, for plaintiff in error. S.P. Freeling, Atty. Gen., and R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
PER CURIAM..
Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the county court of Tulsa county, wherein the defendant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully conveying thirty-eight one-half pints of whisky from a point unknown to a[*603] point on the stairway leading up to the rooming house situated at 1141,4 East First street, in the city of Tulsa, Tulsa county, Oklahoma. j

An examination of the record shows that the evidence points conclusively to the guilt of the defendant of the offense charged. No defense was interposed in his behalf,, and no exceptions taken to any of the instructions given by the court, which said instructions cover the law of the case, and are not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.

The technical questions presented in the brief filed in behalf of the defendant are unnecessary to be considered, in view of the undisputed facts establishing the guilt of the defendant. One of the objects of the prohibitory liquor laws of this state is to prevent the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, and the defendant admitted to the arresting officer that the thirty-eight half-pints of liquor which he then possessed was intended for the purpose of sale, and at the same time he offered to bribe the arresting officer to permit his escape. The punishment-inflicted by the jury was extremely light in view of the evidence.

The judgment of the county coui*t of Tulsa county-sentencing the defendant to pay a fine of one hundred fifty dollars, and to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail, is affirmed.