
    THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JOE CLINKENBEARD, Appellant.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    February 1, 1909.
    1. SELLING LIQUOR: Indictment: Quantity: Proof. An indictment for selling liquor after alleging in the language of tbe statute that a sale was made of less quantity than the minimum allowed to be sold, must in addition allege what quantity the less quantity was, though the proof need not necessarily show the alleged quantity.
    2. -: -: -: “Pine.” Material allegations in an indictment cannot be made out by intendment; and where the indictment avers the amount of whisky sold is one “pine” the court cannot regard it as a clerical error for “pint,” and the indictment is bad since there is no allegation of the quantity sold.
    Appeal from Barton Circuit Court. — Eon. Berry G. ThurmanJudge.
    Reversed.
    
      Cole, Burnett & Moore for appellant.
    (1) Now, bearing in mind that the charge as to whisky is the only one now involved, as there was no attempt to prove a sale of wine or brandy, we insist that the indictment is wholly insufficient to sustain a conviction for selling whisky. All the cases agree that the specific quantity must be alleged (although of course the state might not be confined to that exact quantity). Such an allegation is material. State v. Cox, 29 Mo. 475; State w. Sills, 56 Mo. App. 408; State v. Gibbs, 129 Mo. App. 700. (2) And the word “pine” is not, to our knowledge, any designation of quantity. Therefore, the charge is just the same as though it alleged a sale “in less quantities than four gallons,” and stopped there, for the other words about a “pine” add nothing. We are dealing with an indictment, and nothing material is to be taken by intendment or im-t. ridi, h“Te always required the observance of this rule m charging sales o|0^qupi^(,4h&;fciSj,j^a.h %eq..ql\arg^¡^hql^rb,e of a JáflHJ^nf3íbe!f<.pwí®íi» of eithfiBiffsofatahii 4sStetema3r&aiai^,s8S 'M©^ Id9 pástate v. BÍfdtí'^ffPiijRíIwAftí.'^m1 f Btaífe ^Í^G^ebitfagfen^'-'Sé'^lo. App. '24; State v. Baslietf, 52 Mo. .i^pp-.j^gg.^jgtate v. §í€®^OTe^i^S*tóto)' -State v.. SMlhnan.,.. 2P.9„ Mg-ifíS^jSftatenv. ifeimphellf, gl'OnM60'2O24 State vwdBJaáJtonb, 121 Al’dí T54. «l r’Í0!s V.íEí'ül'if íu j’f njW! Olii WRIV« jíOitiíyifuíJt “p/T.-q” vol ‘((('I'm ¡¡¡lf'J»]'j " f,,S lí D'ISÜ&&1 /OfiOíaU .-KJOS yüjkmüjíí fvjrlJf -io aoi).a,-\a'siji »>j* ni Aiím'í i.mña ».ail ai ájR».ü't>.H*>m
    
      J. B. McGilvray' for respondent.
    .0 v\(ds")dl T'heiVordídpine^íigf'simplIyifíá-* cl-erihaliferrd^ the kind that is often¿.pptfctQKb'eíniaM^ in the present day mode of writing legal papers. The use of the typewriter and the errors that are apt to be madPkpWne in operating is taken notice of by the court in the case of State v. Arjá§f^líñgj'!L8‘?^MS?'2''é7/>iñ^'^íííb^ lik'd'¿ame ¿fehtk %‘j02§rtev»S¡! swtoititoijOalrfé, hrtcl the namq,' qf íGkarles- llalli wag' wriibtennOháirlesíiHaálmNíífS^ Thefihii@&p^l4ngHqf-saí wtoixd is udKgnoundMpmiqúqshihig:. fhej j®dá.et3A§n,tír-r¡iSitqitef(t. ¿Vsaúghn/ láTüMdJsSléqtiSfatM y.6 M'iU'@% 15üaMo< *ilf5í Stafq jfo i íbuc.as; OáST iMo(Lo h(r3tP Aithpugkxrtliere iyq^jip qjsankityímantód'jotlienlthjaqathaftí 1fe^íild^íisoiesfi;)tite»o f©®riogairppsy &he;a iMictmench skonl&jibe gCtQ'dsdaso: th£ joftensdldsnchalrgM inch'd ilan¡-í gqiagg pífotag-etetwite. P/iS^Sfó^*yíla!íf^/B^5Mo.<ja|)fS>; 110$ State(^bBa$kiffi §9 Mo( tAppji!(12Q<;ffptatü:tvñaj}qvfe|! SDOft-M9f.j23ApS.t?atejFí.iutS;tdphen;s,>if70.-i-MoI'A|)pí 55® ;oStáte y¡k ©jiblis^rlfl® * Mo.yApp. d?0O piStatá vqíniicas/fEli47;vM't)¿'íiíri']! Stai&ry>r¿ppj:lyj- 6®j;M'o:viái|).pi iM^-mí uf” oimt o Jm^oíJk ■'%í¡ lok- je íjjocJís '-dViíAv i-alio .-«0 -$<A w/li l»3f]qoia bins
   ELLISON, J.

The defendant was indicated, tried and convicted on a charge of selling intoxicating-ifer qnorgjiiai less; quantities thhhjfbWggial’lons, without!having í&ilicens.e.í-rA ,Ok& <;0£ jííímUíUB

i o tDhe.-.indietmen#) ¡all¡egesí:ith.at;.t defendant visoldo/táetb tain/;int,ox:icatiBg;di.quorsLhn;,!lgsS‘,uqnan!tit>ies).;thanyfQji6 gailonssfi to-wito r,.da© Kpmeá&f-iwiéslijq jianeapitcjf, 'dííots andíO‘n.eiEtin1ñof íbna-Kdysr .etc* y-Thei Mal 'faáledntd' show any isaleidf jbrahdy :,,or. ¡wine^í but ¡ didi. ¡slioy? ¡ <a>, sales f@í<> ¡a] half*. pint r¡©¡f .whisky.;» • The .pointuagainst the judgment; of conviction is that thfi)áfnidié:ttíieBítido.éSí0ifi)tí.chaEgelthet sgietoofcanys qbatotthyimf;. whisky ;y that íisjKjtfeatj.-isn© ipine dfjtw^isl&yois m&t? an/.íaiIegatioñt*of;.'quantity<; oThhuanti th.orities * on) tbeaqnestionyagKéé, ¡ thatia?: ¡SpeeiflC'/quainti tyj. mustebe i alleged; suehvaAlegaition ?is material p.jthongM thegproof meedr not! S'hhw'isnph'iéx-ac. [State v. Cox, 29 Mo. 475; State v. Sills, 556 Mo. App. 408; State v. Gibbs, 129 Mo. App. 700.] After allegiBgpjig the languageyofuthe ipta,tut%. lhat a saieu^ass aele of a less quantity than the minimum allowed to be sold, it must, in addition, be- alleged- iahat quantity the less quantity was. In connection with the authorities just cited, the following should be read. [State v. Fanning, 38 Mo. 409; State v. Ryan, 30 Mo. App. 161; State v. Greenhagen, 36 Mo. App. 24; Statel v. Baskett, 52 Mo. App. 393; State v. Stephens 62 Mo. App. 232.]

«on. ■•GonhseTfor' thé^State dnsi'Sts’tba? the* 'word--“pine” üle,d'iih’ÍM‘dlídifé'íméh{,,^áhdlñdr!Beh'r%W^1Í'7asñ^'Jíiiere faun.»'**' w »':s® xi-n-j o' ‘«kk? ,* u Pf.'.u a bus josijt clerical error, apflvjlhAhÁt.MaioGlqait;; f#ras meant. But it. is against a rule in criminal pleadin ,»jO ‘'í'íSp.Pí* to make out misil- -.aiiíiQ ifo-vij;} auu.,b>i5b liioaj LcaguA. _. _ _ .at any material allegation Jby intendment. [State v. Fairlamb, 121 Mo. 137, 154.] In that case the words in the indictment were ‘Telolious],yáf’4f$n,i],f> fully,” “neapon,” and “nound,” and they were used MHSbc? thé1 wb’M’s^MkóMidu^ly}”t'r“wílf!tfHyp ^Sv^ipon” and “wound” should have beenM’Tkwá'á could not be taken to stand for and mean tbe latter words.

In State v. Campbell, 210 Mo. 202, and State v. Skillman, 209 Mo. 408, tbe concluding words in tbe indictment were “against tbe peace and dignity of State,” instead of “against tbe peace and dignity of the State,” as required by tbe constitution and statute. Tbe only difference was in tbe word “tbe,” and tbe State sought to bave tbe court supply it by intendment; but tbe court, after much consideration, refused to do so and held tbe indictment bad.

In tbe case at bar it was essential, as already stated, to allege a specific quantity. Tbe word “pine” is not a word wbicb signifies any measure of quantity. It serves no purpose and leaves tbe case without an allegation of tbe specific quantity less than four gallons. We think tbe cases cited by tbe • State not applicable.

Tbe judgment is reversed.

All concur.  