
    (109 So. 772)
    No. 27983.
    STATE v. LANDRY.
    (June 28, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1926.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Indictment and information <&wkey;l 10(31).
    Indictment for sale of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes in language of statute held valid, though failing to specify kind of liquor sold.
    2. Indictment and information <&wkey;!2l(2).
    If indictment is lacking in particularity, remedy is by bill ■ of particulars.
    Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette; W. W. Bailey. Judge.
    Isaac Landry was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Lessley & Rouly, of Lafayette, for appellant.
    Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., Percy T. Ogden, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James Gremillion, Dist. Atty., of Crowley (E. R. Schowalter, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
   ROGERS, J.

The appellant was convicted on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. He prosecutes this appeal relying upon a single bill of exception, reserved to the action of the trial judge in overruling his motion in arrest of judgment. In this motion it is alleged the indictment is invalid because it fails to specify the kind of liquor sold.

Appellant’s contention is untenable. The indictment charges the offense in the words of the statute. This satisfies all legal requirements. If the. indictment is lacking in particularity as ayerre.d in' appellant’s motion,his .remedy, .w.as.tp.call for a bill of particulars. State v. Coco, 152 La. 242, 92 So. 883.

The conviction and sentence appealed from are affirmed.  