Vaughn v. State
Vaughn v. The State of Iowa
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Stockton, J.
The first specification under the demurrer, against the sufficiency of the indictment, is, that more than one crime is charged in it to have been committed by the defendant. It charges that the defendant “ did keep, and was concerned, engaged and employed in owning and keeping intoxicating liquors to sell, &c.” This is in the very words of the statute, and there can be no question. *370 but that it defines, and was intended to describe, a single offence, and not two offences.
The second head of the demurrer is, that the acts stated in the indictment, do not constitute a crime. It would be a sufficient objection to this branch of the demurrer, that it does not distinctly specify the grounds of demurrer, and might, therefore, be disregarded. Code, sec. 2953; Benham v. The State, 1 Iowa, 542 . We reply to it, however, that we are unable to see the distinction, which is urged to exist, between charging that defendant “ kept intoxicating liquors to sell,” and that he kept them “with intent to sell.” The two expressions are the same in meaning. "We can conceive of no case, in which a-person could keep liquors to sell, without its being true that he kept them with intent to sell.
J udgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.