Duke v. State
| Decision Date | 09 May 1906 |
| Parties | DUKE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clarke County; John T. Lackland, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Robert Duke was convicted of selling liquor without a license, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Davis & Davis, for appellant.
Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant in this case was convicted of the offense of selling spirituous liquor "without a license and contrary to law, within the limits of Clarke county Alabama." The evidence on the part of the state tended to show that the whisky, which it is claimed was sold by the defendant, was paid for by "two metal checks" which had been issued by the "Scotch Lumber Company," which company issued these checks each day to their employés on each of which checks there was stamped an amount, such as "25 cts.," "50 cts.," that said checks were good for the amount stamped thereon at said company's commissary store, and that on the 21st day of each month said checks could be taken to the office of said company, where they would be redeemed in money, The checks in question were of the denomination of 50 cents each.
The first question which presents itself is whether or not the transaction described constitutes a sale of the liquor within the meaning of the statute, and as charged in the indictment. Generally speaking, a sale is defined as "a transfer of property from one person to another in consideration of a price to be paid in current money." 25 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 284. In an early case this court drew the distinction between a sale and an exchange or barter of articles of personal property, to the effect that, if parties exchange one article for another, the price or value not being measured in money terms, the transaction is an exchange or barter and not a sale, but "sales include all agreements by which property is parted with for a valuable consideration, whether there be a money payment or not, provided the bargain be made and the value measured in money terms." Gunter v. Leckey, 30 Ala. 591, 596. This distinction is quoted with approval in a later case (Coker v. State, 91 Ala. 92, 94, 8 So. 874), and it is based upon abundant authority.
In the present case the character of the checks, as explained in the evidence, shows that such checks represented a certain money value. Consequently the price of the whisky was "measured in money terms," and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Albarty
...v. Meredith, 22 F.Cas.No.13, 227, page 910; hatfield v. State, 9 Ind.App. 296, 36 N.E. 664. See, also, in this connection: Duke v. State, 146 Ala. 138, 41 So. 170; Coker v. State, 91 Ala. 92, 8 So. 874; Gunter v. Leckey, 30 Ala. 591; Forkner v. State, 95 Ind. 406; Westfall v. Ellis, 141 Min......
-
Sturgill v. Lovell Lumber Co.
...the payment of money and the bargain is made, and the value is measured, in terms of money, the transaction is a sale. Duke v. State, 146 Ala. 138, 41 So. 170; Gunter v. Leckey, 30 Ala. 591. The parties agreed that each of the engines should have a definite price or value in consummating th......
-
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. When ... parties exchange one article for another and the price or the ... value is not measured in terms of money, ... and the bargain is made, and the value is measured, in terms ... of money, the transaction [132 W.Va. 178] is a sale. Duke ... v. State, 146 Ala. 138, 41 So. 170; Gunter v ... Leckey, 30 Ala. 591 ... The ... parties agreed that each of the engines ... ...
- Moog v. State