Schmidt v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 1851 |
| Citation | 14 Mo. 137 |
| Parties | JOHN SCHMIDT v. STATE OF MISSOURI. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
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.
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 pecuniary point of view, and then he might carry on this demoralizing and pauper-making business without license and in defiance of law. We think he should suffer for the acts he makes and directs his servant to perform.(a) It is his duty to produce his license; having failed to do so, let him pay the penalty. Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. State
...State v. Crowell, 25 Me. 171; Smith v. Adrian, 1 Mich. 495; State v. Schmail, 25 Minn. 370; Easterling v. State, 35 Miss. 210; Schmidt v. State, 14 Mo. 137; State v. Edwards, 60 Mo. 490; State v. Foster, 23 N. H. 348, 55 Am. Dec. 191; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; Bliss v. Brainard, 41 N.......
-
City of St. Louis v. Weitzel
...on the city to prove a negative. This is the rule of evidence in regard to licenses for the sale of liquor granted by the state (Schmidt v. State, 14 Mo. 137; State Durkem, 23 Mo.App. 387), and the like reason applies here. This is sufficient to sustain the finding of guilty by the court, r......
-
The State v. Doerring
...to compel said board to register him. State ex rel. v. Lutz, 136 Mo. 633. The burden is on defendant to show he had license. Schmidt v. State, 14 Mo. 137; State Durkin, 23 Mo.App. 387; St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 613; State v. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36; St. Louis v. Lamp Co., 139 Mo. 571. OPIN......
-
Ex parte Swann
... ... (1) The ... provisions of this act contravene section twenty-five, ... article two, of the bill of rights of the state of Missouri, ... which provides "that excessive bail shall not be ... required nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual ... punishment ... determining the extent to which the privilege goes, the law ... should be strictly construed against the traffic. Schmidt ... v. State, 14 Mo. 137, and cases cited. (2) This court ... has decided: "The state has the right, in the exercise ... of its police power, to ... ...