People v. Neumann

• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Citation: 48 N.W. 290,85 Mich. 98
• Decision Date: 27 February 1891
• Parties: PEOPLE v. NEUMANN.

48 N.W. 290

85 Mich. 98

PEOPLE
v.
NEUMANN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 27, 1891

Error to circuit court, Mason county; J. BYRON JUDKINS, Judge.

[85 Mich. 99] J. B. McMahon, for appellant.

A. A. Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the People.

MORSE, J.

This is a prosecution under Act No. 313 of the Laws of 1887 for selling liquor to a minor. The defendant was convicted in the circuit court for the county of Mason. Neumann was a saloon-keeper in the city of Ludington. August 9, 1890, Fred Brown, of the age of 17 years and upwards, being 18 in October of that year, went into respondent's saloon in company with two adults, Jefferson and Lozo. He testifies that they wentin and got some beer. That Lozo gave him 20 cents, and told him to get two bottles of beer. That he (Brown) ordered the beer of Neumann, who was out of doors [85 Mich. 100] sweeping. He came in and got the beer and some glasses, which were placed upon a table, at which Brown, Jefferson, and Lozo sat down and drank. Brown paid for the beer. Jefferson testified that he did not know who ordered the beer, or who paid for it, but that Lozo said, "Come in and have a drink," before they went in. His attention being called to his testimony on the examination in justice court, the court, against the objection of respondent's counsel, permitted such evidence to be read to him in the presence of the jury, as follows: "I heard the order for beer given. I did not give it. I don't know who did give it. I saw the beer paid for. Mr. Fred Brown paid for it while sitting at the table. He gave the money to John Neumann,-20 cents;" and to ask him, "Do you remember testifying to that?" to which he answered, "No." Lozo testified that he ordered the beer, but did not "know exactly who paid for it." "I pulled out 20 cents, and laid it on the corner of the table, and I said, 'Here, John, is the money for the beer.' I did not give Brown the ten cents outside of the saloon. I don't know whether I gave him any money or not." Neumann, on his own behalf, testified that Lozo ordered the beer, and that he took the money out of his pocket to pay for it. But he was busy, and did not step over to get his pay at once, and when he did get around there Brown handed him the money. He had known Brown since 1885. The circuit judge instructed the jury, in substance, that it was not necessary that a saloon-keeper must sell or hand the liquor directly to a minor. That if a saloon-keeper sells liquor to a party, and such party turns it over to some one else, who is a minor, and they drink in the saloon, it is a violation of the statute. [85 Mich. 101] "The policy of the law is to discourage sales to minors, and so, I think, the mere fact that this man Lozo might have bought the liquor and paid for it, as he claims, would not be important, as long as the rest of them drank it at the same place." That the proof showed that the boy (Brown) was about 17 years old; and that he was a young-looking boy, and nobody could be deceived by his appearance. That Neumann did not claim that he was deceived by his appearance, or that he supposed he was over age. That the evidence, as it stood, made a case against the respondent. He thereupon directed a verdict of guilty. It is claimed that if Lozo ordered the beer, and paid for it, the respondent cannot be made responsible under the statute for selling, giving, or furnishing liquor to Brown; and that, at the least, the question should have been submitted to the jury, and, if they found that respondent sold the liquor to Lozo in good faith, not intending to furnish it to Brown, he should have been acquitted. We are referred in support of this contention to the case of Siegel v. People, 106 Ill. 89. In that case the minor went into a saloon with two others, one of them (Rooch) being over age. Rooch called for the beer, and the three went up twice to the bar, and drank standing. The others gave Rooch the money each time, and he paid for the drinks. The beer was dealt out in glasses by the bar-keeper of the defendant. It was held that this was not "selling or giving" liquor to a minor under the statute, and that it was not of...