Casey v. State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1840 |
| Parties | CASEY v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY.
COLE, for Appellant. It is insisted that the offense, as alleged in the information and summons, is not warranted by the statute, the first being conjunctive, the latter in the disjunctive. Act 1839, p. 52, § 18. The offense proved is not punishable by the grocers' law: p. 55, § 36. The offense proved, if punishable at all, is an offense in violation of the dram shop law, and should have been proceeded against, as in that law; p. 36, § 16. It is not proved that Casey suffered the liquor and wine sold to be drank at his grocery, nor is it proved that the same were drank there. Act 1839, § 18.
BRICKEY, for the Appellee. Is the act passed at the last session of the Legislature, “An act to license and regulate groceries and dram shops” unconstitutional? See last acts, p. 50, and following.
In compliance with the duty imposed by the 47th section of the act “to license and regulate groceries, dram shops, and for other purposes,” approved February 13th, 1839, John Brickey, a justice of the peace for Washington county, filed information in writing before Eugene Mara, another justice of the same county, charging the appellant with having sold wines and liquors, and suffering the same to be drank in his grocery. The offense is specified in the 18th section of the above mentioned act; the summons of the justice in pursuance of the information, advised the appellant Casey, that he was charged with a violation of the section aforesaid, in consequence of which he forfeited to the county of Washington twenty dollars. The summons pursued the form prescribed by the act, a trial was had, witnesses were examined, the defendant was found guilty, and judgment entered against him for twenty dollars and costs. From that judgment the defendant, Casey, appealed to the Circuit Court, and judgment being again unfavorable he appeals to this Court. From the bill of exceptions the following facts appear to have been given in evidence. The defendant was a grocer at the time of committing the alleged offense, and sold wines and spiritous liquors in quantities less than one quart, and received pay therefor, and the said wines and spiritous liquors were drank at the house of said appellant.
But two objections have been urged in this court to the judgment below.
First. It is objected that the testimony proved the defendant guilty, not only of selling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene County v. Wilhite
...chapter, as the act of such dramshop keeper." This in itself is sufficient to distin guish the case in its rules of evidence from Casey v. State, 6 Mo. 646, Kirkwood v. Autenrieth, 11 Mo.App. 515, and 21 Mo.App. 74. Judgment affirmed. Judge Thompson concurs. Judge Lewis is absent. ...
-
Town of Kirkwood v. Autenreith
...instruction asked by plaintiff, and in giving the instructions given on its own motion and one asked by defendant.-- Casey v. The State, 6 Mo. 646; Isbell v. The State, 13 Mo. 86; Hays v. The State, 13 Mo. 246; The State v. Bryant, 14 Mo. 340; Schmidt v. The State, 14 Mo. 137. The court err......
-
Town of Kirkwood v. Autenreith
...refusing the instruction asked by plaintiff, and in giving the instructions given on its own motion and one asked by defendant.-- Casey v. The State, 6 Mo. 646; Isbell v. The State, 13 Mo. 86; Hays v. The State, 13 Mo. 246; The State v. Bryant, 14 Mo. 340; Schmidt v. The State, 14 Mo. 137. ......
-
Industrial Linens Supply Co., Inc. v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, KCD
...with his permission. He had control in his house, and if he forbade the drinking it was for him to show it in his own defense. Casey v. The State, 6 Mo. 646.' See also United States v. United States Steel Corp., 371 F.Supp. 1045, l.c. 1054(4) (N.D.Ala.1973) modified on other grounds, 520 F.......