Gillan v. State
| Decision Date | 27 November 1886 |
| Citation | 2 S.W. 185,47 Ark. 555 |
| Parties | GILLAN v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Nevada Circuit Court, Hon. L. A. BYRNE, Judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
C. C Hamby for Appellant.
Criminal statutes are construed strictly, and the word sale has a technical legal signification. Bouvier, vol. 2, p. 492; Rapalje Law Dic., vol. 2, p. 1144.
Sec 1878, Mansf. Dig., only applies to sales to minors, and there is no law against the exchange of liquor. See 45 Ark. 351; 30 Ala. 591; 12 N.H. 390; 32 Barb. 630; 5 Heisk., 555; 65 Ind 409.
Dan W. Jones, Attorney General, for Appellee.
The sale to the negro and the exchange to the minor are all one transaction for the same consideration, and constitute a sale. 45 Ark. 356.
The appellant was indicted for selling liquor to a minor without the consent of his parent or guardian and was convicted.
It was proved that the minor gave money to a negro to purchase liquor for him, and that the negro made the purchase of the appellant, at his saloon, in the minor's absence, without disclosing his agency. The liquor, it seems, was not to the minor's taste, and he returned it to the appellant in person at his saloon and received a different brand from him in lieu of it.
It is not contended that the appellant, when he delivered the liquor, had any reason to suspect that the negro was acting as agent for the minor. He could not then, upon that state of proof alone, be convicted of making a sale to the minor. Foster v. State, 45 Ark. 361. If the appellant was apprised however, before the exchange was made with the minor, that he was the real purchaser, and thereafter treated the sale as incomplete by receiving back from the minor the liquor delivered to his agent and by delivering to him other liquor in its stead, upon being assured that it was not the article he desired, this would have been a delivery upon the original consideration, and therefore a sale to the minor. The minor's testimony tended to show this was the state of the case.
But the appellant maintained that he did nothing more than exchange liquor for liquor, without an intimation that the minor had purchased the liquor of him through an agent; and he asked the court to instruct the jury that, if they believed his version to be the true state of facts, he should be acquitted. The court, however, charged the jury that an exchange was in legal effect a sale, and that the defendant should be convicted if the proof showed that he delivered liquor to the minor in exchange for other liquor.
The statute makes it a penal offense for any one to "sell exchange, give, barter or dispose of, any spirituous liquors or wine to an Indian," (Mansf. Dig., sec. 1879,) but when the subject of minors is dealt with, we find that the legislature has seen fit to extend the prohibition to the single act of selling. Ib., sec. 1878. Giving liquor to a minor, or bartering or exchanging it with him, is not within the terms of the statute. And the statute is penal and cannot be extended by the courts to cover other cases not within its terms. That would be judicial legislation. In Ward v. State, 45 Ark. 351, we were forced to hold that one who gave liquor to a minor could not be convicted of selling him the liquor under this statute. Quoting with approval Siegel v. People, 106 Ill....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haworth v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company
... ... evidence, (a) because the negligence, if any, causing ... plaintiff's injuries was the negligence of a ... fellowservant, for which, in the State of Arkansas, defendant ... is not liable; (b) because there was not sufficient proof of ... any negligence on defendant's part to warrant the ... ...
-
Sturgill v. Lovell Lumber Co.
...without agreement as to price, or reference to money payment, the transaction is not a sale, but a barter or exchange." Gilliam v. State, 47 Ark. 555, 2 S. W. 185. When parties exchange one article for another and the price or the value is not measured in terms of money, the transaction is ......
-
Sturgill v. Lovell Lumber Co.
...without agreement as to price, or reference to money payment, the transaction is not a sale, but a barter or exchange.' Gillam v. State, 47 Ark. 555, 2 S.W. 185, 186. parties exchange one article for another and the price or the value is not measured in terms of money, the transaction is a ......
-
Harper v. State
...came through the United States mail, and defendants had no knowledge or information that the purchaser was a minor. It was not a crime. 47 Ark. 555. The railroad was the agent the purchaser. 45 Ark. 361; Black on Intox. Liquor, § 422. 2. The railroad was not the agent of the purchaser, and ......