
    State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Nep. Chilton, Appellant.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    January 21, 1890.
    Criminal Law: venue. To warrant a conviction for the selling of liquor without a license, there must he evidence that the offense was committed in the county in which the indictment was found.
    
      Appeal from, the Texas Circuit Court. — How. 0. C. Bland, Judge.
    Reversed (and defendant discharged).
    
    
      Orchard & Seay, for tbe appellant.
    It devolves on tbe state, to prove tbe venue wbicb, in tbis case, it fails to do. State v. Miller, 71 Mo. 89; State v. Hughes, 71 Mo. 633;. State v. McGinnis, 74 Mo. 245; State v. Babb, 79 Mo. 366; State v. Hughes, 82 Mo. 86; State 'o. Quaite, 20 Mo. App. 405; State v. McKay, 20 Mo. App. 149.
    
      V. M. Hines, for tbe respondent.-
   Rombauer, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of tbe court. Tbe defendant was indicted, tried and convicted, for selling liquor without a license, and appeals. He complains of tbe insufficiency of tbe indictment, and of tbe rendition of tbe judgment against him upon insufficient proof. It is needless- to discuss tbe first point made, because we are clear that the second is well taken and necessarily results in a reversal of tbe judgment.

Upon tbe trial of tbe cause, the state gave no evidence whatever showing, or tending to show, in what county the alleged offense was committed. This omission, under the uniform ruling in this state, is fatal to the verdict. State v. Milter, 71 Mo. 90; State v. Hughes, 82 Mo. 86; State v. McKay, 20 Mo. App. 149, and cases cited.

The judgment is reversed and the defendant discharged.

All the judges concur.  