State v. Andrews
Decision Date | 31 January 1858 |
Citation | 26 Mo. 171 |
Parties | THE STATE, Respondent, v. ANDREWS, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. The act concerning merchants and grocers, approved February 23, 1853, (Sess. Acts, 1853, p. 111,) authorized the granting of licenses to grocers for a year.
2. The act entitled “an act to tax and license merchants” (R. C. 1855, p. 1077, § 22,) did not affect grocers' licenses previously granted under the act of February 23, 1853; it is only applicable to licenses granted after May 1, 1856.
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court.
This cause was removed by change of venue from the circuit court of Greene county to Polk circuit court. The indictment in this case charged that the defendant, Benjamin G. Andrews, of, &c., on, &c., at, &c., “with force and arms did then and there unlawfully sell a quantity of spirituous liquors, to-wit, one quart of whisky, and did then and there unlawfully permit the same to be drank at a place under his control, without then and there having a dram-shop keeper's license, inn keeper's license or any other legal authority to sell said spirituous liquors, in manner and form aforesaid, contrary,” &c.
At the trial the prosecution introduced a witness who testified that in June or July, 1856, at the time of the session of a district convention, he purchased a quart of whisky of defendant for twenty-five cents. The time of holding this convention was fixed by other evidence in the first week of May, 1856.
The defendant offered in evidence the following license: The court refused to permit said license to be read. Defendant offered to prove that he had paid to the sheriff of Greene county the tax upon the license for the year 1856. The court ruled out the testimony.
The court, at the instance of the state, instructed the jury as follows: “If the jury shall believe from the evidence that the defendant, within the county of Greene, in the state of Missouri, and after the first day of May, 1856, but before the finding of the indictment, sold any quantity of intoxicating liquor called whisky in a less quantity than one gallon, they should find the defendant guilty.” The court refused to give the following instructions asked by defendant:
The jury rendered a verdict against defendant.
Wright, for appellant.
I. The instruction on the part of the state was wrong. The offence charged is evidently against defendant as a merchant or grocer. The charge does not consist in selling alone, but in permitting it to be drank at a place under his control. There was no evidence that he so permitted it to be drank. A merchant or grocer may sell spirituous liquor, but not in any quantity to be drank at his store, &c. (21 Mo. 493.) The license offered in evidence authorized defendant to sell spirituous liquor for an entire year. It was legally granted in pursuance of the act of February 23, 1853. By that act merchants and grocers...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Kane
... ... such licenses but nothing more; that there is nothing in the ... act indicating an intention of the Legislature to revoke or ... annul the unexpired licenses granted before the repeal ... Hirn. v. State, 1 Ohio St. 15; Adams v ... Hackett, 27 N.H. 289, 59 Am. Dec. 376; State v ... Andrews, 26 Mo. 171; State v. Andrews, 28 Mo ... 14; May v. Commonwealth, 160 Ky. 785, 170 S.W. 493; ... Foster v. Dow, 29 Me. 442; Watts v ... Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 329; Bush v. D. C., 1 App. D. C. 1 ... It was ... also urged that it is a sound rule of construction that a ... statute ... ...
-
State v. Richeson
...v. Whittaker, 33 Mo. 457; State v. West, 34 Mo. 427; 37 Mo. 192; State v. Jacobs, 38 Mo. 379; State v. Cox, 32 Mo. 566; 27 Mo. 344, 464; 26 Mo. 171; State v. Brown et al., 8 Mo. 210; State v. Hunter, 5 Mo. 360; State v. Martin, id. 361; Tracy et al. v. State, 3 Mo. 3; 43 Mo. 179; 2 Bouv. La......
-
State v. Carson
... ... affect rights which have accrued under prior valid laws ... There was no clause in the law of 1883 revoking licenses ... issued to physicians and surgeons under the Law of 1877 ... State v. Evans, 83 Mo. 319; State v ... Andrews, 26 Mo. 171; State ex rel. v. Baker, 32 ... Mo.App. 98; Hannibal v. Guyatt, 18 Mo. 515; ... Foster v. Dowe, 29 Me. 442; State ex rel. v ... Vernon County, 53 Mo. 128; Bank v. Snelling, 35 ... Mo. 190; State v. Patrick, 65 Mo.App. 653. (3) The ... court erred in refusing to declare the law as ... ...
-
City of St. Louis v. Dorr
...especially as large sums of money had already been expended in the erection of the building. Hannibal v. Guyott, 18 Mo. 515; State v. Andrews, 26 Mo. 171; Baker Railroad, 57 Mo. 265; House v. Montgomery, 19 Mo.App. 170; Gibson v. Association, 33 Mo.App. 165. Burgess, J. Gantt, P. J., and Sh......