TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Kerley

The State of Kansas v. Sam Kerley

State v. Kerley, 276 P. 802 (Kan. 1929)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 4, 1929
Docket
No. 28,678
Judges
Marshall
Citations
276 P. 802128 Kan. 2291929 Kan. LEXIS 294

Opinion of the Court — Marshall

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Marshall, J.:

Each of the defendants appeals from a judgment rendered against him for violating the prohibitory liquor laws of the state of Kansas. The defendants were jointly charged with six separate violations of the law. Each of the defendants was found guilty under the fourth, fifth and sixth counts of the information. The fourth count charged the defendants with having intoxicating liquor in their possession; the fifth count charged the sale of liquor to one Luther Pergrem; and the sixth count charged that the defendants kept and maintained a common nuisance.

The contention of the defendants is that the evidence introduced was not sufficient to sustain a conviction. There was evidence which tended to prove that the defendants were operating a filling station on a public highway north of Wellington in Sumner county; that they had in their employ one Elmer Day; that through Elmer Day intoxicating liquor was purchased by Luther Pergrem from each of the defendants; that the liquor sold belonged to the defendants ; that on one occasion liquor was- purchased with a marked bill which was immediately thereafter found on the person of the defendant Kenneth Kerley; that the defendants had instructed Elmer Day as to the manner in which sales should be made and concerning the manner of putting alcohol in beer; that the liquor *230 sold was obtained by Elmer Day from the premises occupied by the defendants or under their control; that each of the defendants sold intoxicating liquor; that the place was raided by officers, and that intoxicating liquor was found. The instructions of the court appear to be regular, and no evidence was introduced except what was proper and competent. There does not appear to have been any error.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list