Harrison v. State
| Decision Date | 16 April 1896 |
| Parties | HARRISON v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Weakley county; W. H. Swiggart, Judge.
J. B. Harrison was convicted of making an illegal sale of liquor, and appeals. Affirmed.
Ewing & Cary and C. M. Ewing, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.
The plaintiff in error is a distiller of whisky. He was indicted for selling liquor in violation of section 1 of chapter 167 of the Acts of 1887. After a trial, he was found guilty, and a judgment was entered subjecting him to a fine of $50, and imprisonment in the county jail for 60 days. From this judgment he has appealed, and insists that its effect is to deprive him of the protection of an exception found in the second section of the act. In 1877 the legislature passed an act entitled "An act to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors near institutions of learning." Acts 1877, c. 23. By the first section of this act, it was made unlawful "to sell or tipple any intoxicating beverage within four miles of any incorporated institution of learning"; and, by its second section, there was excepted from the operation of the first section, among others, sales made "by manufactories of such liquors in wholesale packages or quantities." This act met with such popular approval that the legislature, in 1887, passed the act (chapter 167, p. 293) under which this indictment was found. This statute, by its first section, makes it a misdemeanor for any one to sell or tipple any liquors, etc., "within four miles of any schoolhouse, public or private, where a school is kept, whether the school be then in session or not," and, in its second section, repeats the various exceptions, in the same words, as are found in the corresponding section of the act of 1877. This latter act was the subject of construction in State v. Lowenhaught, 11 Lea, 13; in Webb v. Baird, Id. 667; in State v. Tarver, Id. 658. In this last case, this court, reaffirming its definition of a dealer by wholesale under that act, as announced in State v. Lowenhaught, supra, said: "The distinction between a wholesale and retail dealer did not depend on the quantity sold by either, but that sales to purchasers of packages or quantities for the purpose of trade or being resold constituted a wholesale dealer, and to persons or customers for the purpose of consumption constituted a retail dealer."
Upon re-examining this question, we are entirely satisfied with this rule for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webster v. State
..."Passed March 23, 1887." The act of 1887 was enforced by this court in Moore v. State, 96 Tenn. 544, 35 S. W. 556, and Harrison v. State, 96 Tenn. 548, 35 S. W. 559. In 1899 section 2 of chapter 167 of the Acts of 1887 was amended so as to prohibit sales of liquor in towns thereafter incorp......
-
Brock v. Positive Changes Hypnosis, LLC
...See, e.g., FLSA Retail or Service Establishment, 29 C.F.R. § 779.24 (1970); Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-4-702(a)(19); Harrison v. State, 96 Tenn. 548, 35 S.W. 559 (1896); Pfizer v. Johnson, 2006 WL 163190, at *1 (Tenn.Ct.App. Jan.23, 2006). The Court adopts this long-standing and commonly-used defi......
-
State v. Caldwell
...of all the circumstances, it appeals to the unbiased mind as being true. The testimony in the Prendible Case, cited by appellant (135 Mo. 329, 35 S. W. 559) discloses a state of facts authorizing the conclusion that the witnesses for the state were guilty of perjury. No semblance of similar......
-
J. W. Kelly & Co. v. State
...appears from our legislation on the subject and the decision of this court under them. State v. Tarver, 11 Lea, 658; Harrison v. State, 96 Tenn. 548, 35 S. W. 559. Thus in Lowenhaught's Case, afterwards reaffirmed in Harrison v. State, supra, it was said that "sales to persons or customers ......