Baeumel v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtMITCHELL, J.
Citation7 So. 371,26 Fla. 71
Decision Date17 March 1890
PartiesBAEUMEL v. STATE.

7 So. 371

26 Fla. 71

BAEUMEL
v.
STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

March 17, 1890


Error to circuit court, Polk county; G. A. HANSON, Judge.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. In a prosecution for carrying the business of dealer in spirituous liquors without a license, under the act of March 5, 1883, it was not necessary for the indictment to allege that the defendant was not a durggist at the time of the sales of liquor, nor that the liquor was not used by a duruggist in compounding medicines, and the preparation of prescriptions made by a regular practicing physician. If it was a fact that the liquor was sold as a component part of medicines upon such prescription, it was a matter of defense that the defendant could have availed himself of.

2. As a general rule, if there is an exception in the enacting clause of a statute, the party pleading must show that his adversary is not within the exception; but, if there be an exception in a subsequent clause, or a subsequent statute, that is matter of defense, and is to be shown by the other party.

3. A charge that 'the fact that the defendant's place of business was a drug-store does not raise any presumption in his favor; and, if the state has proven to your satisfaction that any single sale of spirituous liquors as made by the defendant, and the defendant has not then shown that such sale was justified under the privileges of a druggist, which he claims, then you should convict,'--held to be correct.

4. The penalty prescribed for the violation of the act under which the defendant was convicted was not less than double the amount of the license required to authorize the selling of liquor, $600; and a fine of $900 for the violation of said act was not excessive.

COUNSEL [7 So. 372]

[26 Fla. 72] Wilson & Wilson and J. L. Albritton, for plaintiff in error.

William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

MITCHELL, J.

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted at the fall term of the circuit court, 1889, for carrying on the business of dealer in spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors without a license. Motion was made for new trial, which was overruled; and the case was brought here upon writ of error from the order of the circuit court overruling said motion.

The first error assigned is that the court erred in refusing to quash the indictment. The indictment contains four counts, the first of which charges the defendant with carrying on the business of dealer in spirituous liquors without a license; the second charges him with carrying on the business of dealer in spirituous liquors, to-wit, whisky, rum, and alcohol, without a license; the third charges him with carrying on the business of dealing in malt liquors without a license; and the fourth charges him with carrying on the business of dealer in malt luquors, to- [26 Fla. 73] wit, lagerbeer, without a license. The defendant moved to quash the indictment (1) because the indictment does not charge any offense against the defendant; (2) because the indictment is founded upon the general law of the state, which law received the signature of the governor on the 5th day of March, 1883, and that the indictment does not allege facts and circumstances sufficient to bring the defendant within the terms of the statute; (3) because the indictment does not allege that the defendant was not a druggist; (4) because the indictment does not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • Powell v. Tompkins, No. 13–1310.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • April 15, 2015
    ...or a subsequent statute, that is [a] matter of defence [sic], and is to be shown by the other party.” Id. (quoting Baeumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71, 7 So. 371, 372 (1890) ). Because, in the Florida statute, the phrase “without having a license” “exception” appeared in the “enacting clause,” the......
  • Amos v. Gunn
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 7, 1922
    ...of any reasonable requirements for redressing the wrong. See 16 C.J. 1358; Kinkaid v. Jackson, 66 Fla. 378, 63 So. 706; Baeumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71, 7 So. 371; Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 30 S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed. 793, 19 Ann. Cas. 705. In the statute here considered the penalty pre......
  • Williams v. State, No. 80-1368
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 7, 1982
    ...that the unlawfulness of the confinement is an affirmative defense to be raised by the defendant under the language in Baeumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71, 7 So. 371 (1890), which stated the correct test to [I]f there is an exception in the enacting clause, the party pleading must show that his ad......
  • State v. Cotton, No. 2D14–2679.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 26, 2016
    ...propriety” of fines that double and treble the amount of money involved in a violation of the law. See, e.g., Baeumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71, 7 So. 371, 373 (1890) ; Ferre v. State, 478 So.2d 1077, 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Cotton's challenge to the constitutionality of the fine as applied to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • Powell v. Tompkins, No. 13–1310.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • April 15, 2015
    ...or a subsequent statute, that is [a] matter of defence [sic], and is to be shown by the other party.” Id. (quoting Baeumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71, 7 So. 371, 372 (1890) ). Because, in the Florida statute, the phrase “without having a license” “exception” appeared in the “enacting clause,” the......
  • Amos v. Gunn
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 7, 1922
    ...of any reasonable requirements for redressing the wrong. See 16 C.J. 1358; Kinkaid v. Jackson, 66 Fla. 378, 63 So. 706; Baeumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71, 7 So. 371; Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 30 S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed. 793, 19 Ann. Cas. 705. In the statute here considered the penalty pre......
  • Williams v. State, No. 80-1368
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 7, 1982
    ...that the unlawfulness of the confinement is an affirmative defense to be raised by the defendant under the language in Baeumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71, 7 So. 371 (1890), which stated the correct test to [I]f there is an exception in the enacting clause, the party pleading must show that his ad......
  • State v. Cotton, No. 2D14–2679.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 26, 2016
    ...propriety” of fines that double and treble the amount of money involved in a violation of the law. See, e.g., Baeumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71, 7 So. 371, 373 (1890) ; Ferre v. State, 478 So.2d 1077, 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Cotton's challenge to the constitutionality of the fine as applied to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT