Secs. 4199 and 5357, R.S. 1929. The statutes set out all the elements constituting the offense, and the information charges the offense in the language of the statute, and is therefore sufficient. State v. Toombs, 25 S.W.2d 101; State v. Moore, 279 S.W. 134, 311 Mo. 531; State v. Anderson, 250 S.W. 68, 298 Mo. 382; State v. Hilton, 248 Mo. 522; State v. Nash, 222 S.W. 396, 283 Mo. 32. (5) It is not necessary that the exceptions and provisos mentioned in (a) to (f) inclusive of par. 1 of Sec. 5357, R.S. 1929, be pleaded in the information. Where there are exceptions negativing guilt all such exceptions must be pleaded in the information, where they occur as parts of the statutory definition of the offense, in all cases where, if such exceptions were admitted, the offense cannot be accurately described.
As this was distinctly favorable to appellant, he is in no position to complain on that score. [State v. Moore, 311 Mo. 531, 279 S.W. 134; State v. Futrell, 329 Mo. 961, 46 S.W.2d 588.] Instruction No. 4 fully and correctly declared the law, and embraced every element necessary for a conviction under the statute. Now, does the giving of such a correct instruction, on one theory, in conjunction with an instruction on another theory which latter instruction is erroneous, but only insofar as it requires proof on the part of the State in excess of that imposed by law, create such a material conflict as warrants this court in interfering? It is not pointed out or suggested how the alleged conflict could or might tend to confuse or mislead the jury to appellant's prejudice.
State v. Nichols, 39 S.W.2d 777; State v. Cory, 22 S.W.2d 796; State v. Tally, 22 S.W.2d 789; State v. Balfour, 19 S.W.2d 756; State v. Kroeger, 13 S.W.2d 1071; State v. Cook, 3 S.W.2d 367; State v. Sappington, 2 S.W.2d 730; State v. Black, 289 S.W. 806. The weight of the testimony was for the jury. State v. Howard, 23 S.W.2d 14; State v. Cook, 3 S.W.2d 367; State v. Moore, 279 S.W. 134. HENWOOD, J.
State v. Turner, 273 S.W. 739. Ruling on motion to quash indictment is not considered in the absence of the motion to quash in the bill of exceptions. State v. Moore, 279 S.W. 134. Recital in bill of exceptions of filing of a motion will not entitle an appellant to review. State v. Brown, 279 S.W. 98. Motions not made part of bill of exceptions are not a part of the record.
State v. Chick, 221 S.W. 10. When, however, a statute defines the offense with some particularity, and classifies the acts coming within the definition, it is pleading with certainty to a common intent to specify the act, and otherwise to follow the language of the statute, e.g., the instant case. State v. Knost, 207 Mo. 18; State v. Moore, 311 Mo. 531; Ford v. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge (Mich.), 158 N.W. 841; State v. Moore (N.H.), 39 A. 584; People v. Elite Distributing Co., 137 N.Y.S. 235, 27 N.Y. Cr. 345; Commonwealth v. Coe, 115 Mass. 481; 25 C.J. 625; State v. Chumley, 67 Mo. 41; Beasley v. State, 18 Ala. 535; State v. Dooley, 121 Mo. 591; State v. Ritter, 288 Mo. 381. (b) The words "false" and "fraudulent" in the statute are redundant descriptive words. The gist of the crime is the procuring (with intent, etc.,) signatures to a certificate of stock which the corporation was not authorized by its charter to issue.
This meets the requirement of the statute. Sec. 21, p. 242, Laws 1923; State v. Griffith, 279 S.W. 138; State v. Moore, 279 S.W. 134; State v. Wright, 280 S.W. 703; State v. Brown, 262 S.W. 711. (4) The terms "transport" and "transportation" as applied to intoxicating liquor under the statute mean carrying or conveying from place to place. It is not necessary that the transportation be for sale. Secs. 19, 21, p. 242, Laws 1923. (5) Defendant complains in various assignments of error that the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury.
(2) The indictment was in the language of the statute and is sufficient. State v. Heilman, 246 S.W. 622; State v. Brock, 280 S.W. 48; State v. Vance, 267 S.W. 1118; State v. Brown, 262 S.W. 710; State v. Creon Moore, 279 S.W. 133, 134; State v. Morris, 279 S.W. 141. (3) Section 21 of the Intoxicating Liquor Law of 1923 is constitutional.
Previous experience in drinking moonshine whiskey and familiarity with it was sufficient to qualify witnesses to give an opinion that a liquid was moonshine whiskey. State v. Moore, 279 S.W. 133, 134 (Mo. 1925). The witness was more than an occasional user. He testified he used marijuana daily.
It is not necessary to charge the possession was for beverage purposes. [State v. Keltner, 278 S.W. 825; State v. Moore, 279 S.W. 134; State v. Sparks, 278 S.W. 1073; State v. Hoelscher, 273 S.W. 1098.] Further examining the record it will be observed that the court granted an indefinite stay of execution without bond, as to the jail sentence. The order granting such stay of execution was without authority of law and void. [Ex parte Thornberry, 254 S.W. 1087; Ex parte Cornwall, 223 Mo. 259, 122 S.W. 666; State ex rel. v. Kelly, 274 S.W. 731.]