Pressly v. State

Decision Date18 March 1905
Citation86 S.W. 378,114 Tenn. 534
PartiesPRESSLY v. STATE.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Putnam County; Cordell Hull, Judge.

John Pressly was convicted of giving liquors to a minor without the consent of his parents, and he appeals. Affirmed.

John Tucker, for appellant.

Attorney General Cates, for the State.

NEIL J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted in the circuit court of Putnam county on a charge of giving liquors to a minor without the consent of his parents. He was thereupon sentenced to pay a fine of $10 and to six mouths' confinement in the county workhouse. From this judgment he has appealed and assigned errors.

The statute under which he was indicted is found in Shannon's Code, § 6786, and reads as follows:

"It shall be unlawful for any person or individual, or firm or corporation, whether engaged or not in the manufacture or sale of any spirituous liquors, malt, or mixed liquors their employees, agents, or servants, or other persons for them, knowingly to sell, give, furnish to, or procure for any person under the age of twenty-one years, any spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, or any mixture thereof with other liquors or ingredients, without the consent of the parents, guardian, or person having the care of such person under the age of twenty-one years."

The punishment is fixed by section 6789, which reads as follows:

"Any person or persons violating the provisions of sections 6786 or 6787 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than ten nor more than two hundred dollars."

Two objections are made in this court.

The first is that his honor erred in refusing to permit the defendant below to introduce the following paper in evidence, executed by the mother of the minor, viz.:

"Mr. John Pressly: You can give any of my children drinks of whiskey or brandy at any time you may desire to do so. This December 1, 1903.
"Angelina her X mark. Palmer.
"Attest J. L. Palmer."

The mother of the boy was a widow. The child to whom the whisky was given was only 15 years old. The whisky was given to him during the month of July, 1904.

There was no error in the action of the trial judge in rejecting this paper. It was the specific purpose of the statute to restrain the giving, selling, or furnishing intoxicating beverages to minors, or procuring such beverages for them. An exception was permitted in case of the consent of "the parents, guardian, or person having the care of such" minor. It was supposed that parents and guardians, and other persons having charge of minors would have concern for and exercise care over the children committed to them in the course of nature or by operation of law, and that they would use discretion in giving or withholding consent in every instance of a proposed gift or sale to such child or children. To admit the validity of such a general consent as the paper above set out purports to give would not only violate the spirit of the act, but would wholly frustrate the purpose which the Legislature had in view; since a general consent of this character would be tantamount to a withdrawal of the child or children referred to in such paper from the protection of the act; at least, in favor of the person or persons to whom such writing might be addressed. If such consent should be held good, no sound reason could be offered against the validity of a writing addressed "to whom it may concern," conferring upon all persons who might choose to take advantage of it, the right to give intoxicating liquors to the children of any parent or guardian sufficiently heedless, or reckless, or wicked to consent to the debauching of the youth under their charge. The Legislature did not intend to sanction such a course of conduct. Indeed, we believe that the Legislature must have intended that a parent, or guardian, or other person having the care of a minor could give consent that another might...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Ruth, 9
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1969
    ...v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 382, 30 S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed. 793; In Re Graham, 138 U.S. 461, 11 S.Ct. 363, 34 L.Ed. 1051; Pressly v. State, 114 Tenn. 534, 86 S.W. 378. It is clear that no sentence to imprisonment or to any other punishment for a criminal offense can be valid unless supporte......
  • Diamond v. State
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1910
    ... ... different from that prescribed by the statute. Section 16 of ... chapter 479 of the Acts of ... [131 S.W. 670.] ... 1909 fixes the minimum at $10, and the maximum at $50. The ... error can, however, be corrected here so as to conform to the ... statute. Pressly ... ...
  • State ex rel. Ward v. Murrell
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • February 17, 1936
    ... ... court, pursuant to the broad definition of misdemeanors, by ... section 10755 of the Code, could add imprisonment for not ... more than a year in any case. The power to impose a fine of ... less than $50 is attended by the power of the court to punish ... by imprisonment. Pressly v. State, 114 Tenn. 534, ... 538, 86 S.W. 378, 69 L.R.A. 291, 108 Am.St.Rep. 921 ...          No good ... and valid reason is suggested and none can be conceived for ... subjecting citizens of a single county to arraignment without ... indictment and trial without jury contrary to ... ...
  • Austin v. Shelton
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1910
    ... ... shall be taken as prima facie evidence that the parties are ... in the wholesale or retail liquor business, and are subject ... to state and county taxes, unless established by proof that ... they are not so engaged. Upon any clerk's receiving ... knowledge of such internal revenue ... State, 96 Tenn. 548, ... 35 S.W. 559; State v. Rauscher, 1 Lea, 96; ... Grills v. Mayor, 8 Baxt. 247; Webb v ... State, 11 Lea, 662; Pressly v. State, 114 Tenn ... 535, 86 S.W. 378, 69 L. R. A. 291, 108 Am. St. Rep. 921; ... Foster v. Speed, 120 Tenn. 470, 111 S.W. 925, 22 L ... R. A ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT