Mullen v. State
| Decision Date | 21 June 1884 |
| Docket Number | 11,722 |
| Citation | 96 Ind. 304 |
| Parties | Mullen v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Monroe Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
J. W Buskirk and H. C. Duncan, for appellant.
F. T Hord, Attorney General, J. E. Henley, Prosecuting Attorney and W. B. Hord, for the State.
The indictment in this case charged that Pat Mullen, of the county of Monroe, in this State, "on the 20th day of August, A. D. 1883, at said county and State, * * did then and there unlawfully sell to one William Campbell intoxicating liquor in less quantity than a quart, to wit, one gill of beer, at and for the price of five cents, he, the said Pat Mullen, not then and there having a license to sell such intoxicating liquors in a less quantity than a quart at a time."
A motion to quash the indictment being first denied, the circuit court found the defendant guilty as charged and adjudged him to pay a fine of $ 20.
Section 5312, R. S. 1881, enacts that "It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to sell, barter, or give away, for any purpose of gain, any spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor, in a less quantity than a quart at a time, without first procuring, from the board of commissioners of the county in which such liquor is to be sold, a license as hereinafter provided."
It is claimed that the indictment was essentially defective in not charging that the intoxicating liquor was sold in a less quantity than a quart at a time, and that for that reason the circuit court erred in overruling the motion to quash the indictment.
In support of this claim the arguments and illustrations used by this court in the case of Arbintrode v. State, 67 Ind. 267 (33 Am. R. 36), are relied upon, in connection with other cases holding that generally an offence must be charged substantially in the language of the statute defining it. But the point really decided in that case was that in charging the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in cases like this, it was necessary to use such words as would convey to the mind the definite idea that a sale had been made of a less quantity than a quart, and it was held incidentally that in so charging no particular form of words need be adopted.
The words used in charging the alleged offence in this case were sufficient to convey to the mind the definite idea that less than a quart of beer had been sold at one time to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Lockman
... ... and fermented liquors" are declared as a matter of law ... to be intoxicating, and it is unnecessary for the state to ... prove that any liquor or beverage falling within the ... enumerated class will in fact produce intoxication ... 3 ... Under the ... that beer is a malt liquor, it is not necessary to introduce ... proof to that effect. (Mullen v. State, 96 Ind ... 304; Stout v. State, 96 Ind. 407; Douglas v ... State, 21 Ind.App. 302, 52 N.E. 238; Myers v ... State, 93 Ind. 251 ... ...
-
Douglas v. State
...word “beer,” as used in ordinary parlance, is to be taken, as matter of law, in its primary meaning of a malt liquor. See, also, Mullen v. State, 96 Ind. 304; Stout v. State, Id. 407; Dant v. State, 106 Ind. 79, 5 N. E. 870. In Welsh v. State, 126 Ind. 71, 25 N. E. 883, the affidavit charge......
-
Douglas v. State
... ... sense;" that, under the statute, "malt liquor must ... be held to be an intoxicating liquor," and that the word ... "beer," as used in ordinary parlance, is to be ... taken, as matter of law, in its primary meaning of a malt ... liquor. See, also, Mullen v. State, 96 Ind ... 304; Stout v. State, 96 Ind. 407; ... Dant v. State, 106 Ind. 79, 5 N.E. 870. In ... Welsh v. State, 126 Ind. 71, 25 N.E. 883, ... the affidavit charged a sale of "beer" without ... alleging that it was intoxicating, or that it was malt beer ... It was held that the ... ...
-
State v. Jones
...Klare v. State, 43 Ind. 483, where Carmon v. State, supra, is approvingly referred to. See, also, Myers v. State, 93 Ind. 251; Mullen v. State, 96 Ind. 304; Stout v. State, 93 Ind. Fenton v. State, 100 Ind. 598; Dant v. State, 106 Ind. 79, 5 N.E. 870; Callahan v. State, 2 Ind.App. 417, 28 N......