Schmidt v. State

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: RYLAND
• Citation: Schmidt v. State, 14 Mo. 137 (Mo. 1851)
• Decision Date: 31 March 1851
• Parties: JOHN SCHMIDT v. STATE OF MISSOURI.

14 Mo. 137

JOHN SCHMIDT

v.STATE OF MISSOURI.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1851.

APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS CRIMINAL COURT.

LACKLAND, for The State. 1. If the defendant sold by his clerk or agent, he is liable as well as the clerk. Hays v. The State, decided at the last May term of this court. 2. Nor did the court err in instructing the jury that it was incumbent upon the defendant to produce his license to sell, and in default thereof they must find that he had no license authorizing him to sell. Wheat v. The State, 6 Mo. R. 455. 3. The action of the court below touching the question of evidence cannot be reversed by this court, because the evidence is not preserved. 4. The court rightfully overruled the motion in arrest. The indictment is good. It is not bad for duplicity. State v. Presbury, 13 Mo. R. 345.

RYLAND, J.

This case presents the instructions given below for our adjudication. The evidence is not saved nor presented to us. We presume the evidence justified the court in giving the instructions: if so, we must believe there was proof that the clerk of the defendant, by his directions and under his control and employment, sold the intoxicating or spiritous liquors mentioned in the indictment, and that there was no license to the defendant authorizing him to sell, &c.

We find no fault with the instructions given. The grand jury might indict either the master or the clerk, and having indicted the master, it shall not avail him to say his clerk sold the liquors at his grocery under his control and direction. If this could avail the employer, he would only have to employ a clerk, irresponsible in a...