Supreme Court of Iowa, 1866

State v. Becker

Supreme Court of Iowa · Decided June 13, 1866 · Dillon

20 Iowa 438

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Niers (Iowa 1893)
State v. Schweiter (Kan. 1882)
State v. Larson (Wash. 1934)
State v. Brown (Idaho 1922)
State v. Koerner (Wash. 1918)
City of Lincoln Center v. Linker (Kan. Ct. App. 1896)
State v. Bodeckar (Wash. 1895)
Dansey v. State (Fla. 1887)
Blair v. Compton (Mich. 1876)
State v. Layton (Iowa 1868)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Dillon, J.

The defendant was indicted under the eighth section of the prohibitory liquor law, being section 1564 of the Revision.

i. ixmertmdoátin? liquors: dupiicity. Decided : First. That an indictment, under said section, which charges that in a certain building the defendant kept intoxicating liquors for sale, and did then and-there sell the same, does not charge two dis-3 tinct offenses, and is not bad for duplicity.

z. — name cimera, Second. It is not necessary to set Out in the indictment the names of the persons to whom the liquor was sold.

3. __ aebuilding, Third. That, as the proceeding under that section is against the person, the building need not be described, and its specific location averred.

4. Intoxiora: evidence. Fourth. The State is not bound to show, affirmatively, that the liquors were not kept in original vessels or packages, and that thev were not sold for mechanical, ° ’ J ’ medicinal, or sacramental purposes. These are «pr0per grounds of defense.” Rev., §§ 1559, 1560, 1564, 1569 ; The State v. Guisenhause, ante.

*440We have not been favored with an argument by tbe appellant. We discover no other questions in tbe record. Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.