State v. Farr.
| Decision Date | 25 June 1890 |
| Parties | State v. Farr. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Spirituous Liquors Sales to Drunkard.
To make a saloon-keeper liable to punishment under the provisions of section 16, c. 32, Code, for selling spirituous liquors to a person in the habit of drinking to intoxication, it is not necessary that he should know or have reason to believe, that such person is in the habit of drinking to intoxication.
Attorney-General Alfred Caldwell for the State cited: 31 W. Ya. 122; 9 W. Ya. 559; 28 W. Va. 497; 9 W. Va. 641; 47 Ark. 109; 63 Md. 551; 138 Mass. 492; Id. 511; 88 Ind. 145; 23 Minn. 549; 35 Mo. App. 475; 57 Conn. 173; 12 111. App. 200; 36 Ark. 58; 37 Ark. 108; Id. 399; 27 Minn. 153; 92 111. 400; 49 la. 650; 43 la. 282; 6 Bush. 400; 24 Wis. 60; 69 Ill. 523; 77 111. 322; 69 Ill. 601; 50 Ind. 22.
Z. T. Vinson for defendant in error.
L. D. Isbcll of counsel for defendant in error, cited 9 W. Ya, 559; Id. 641; Acts 1887, c. 29 s. 16.
Snyder, President:
Indictment in the Circuit Court of Cabell county against J. S. Farr, for a misdemeanor. The case; was tried by jury, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the defendant; and the State brought this writ of error. The indictment charged that the defendant having a state license to sell spirituous liquors at his saloon in the city of Huntington "unlawfully and knowingly did at his said saloon sell and give such spirituous liquors * * * to one Millard Lai-lance, he, the said Lallance, then and there being in the habit of drinking to intoxication; and lie, the said Farr, then and there had reason to believe and well knew, that said Lallance was then and there in the habit of drinking to intoxication," etc.
The State proved that the defendant at his saloon in the city of Huntington within one year before the finding of said indictment did sell to said Millard La 11anee two drinks of whisky on two different days, and also proved that said Lallance was at that time a person who was in the habit of drinking to intoxication, and had been of such habit for at least two years prior to the finding of said indictment.
The defendant then proved that he did not know, at the times he sold said whisky to said Lallancc, that he was a person who was in the habit of drinking to intoxication; that he had no cause to believe him to be such person; that he (said Farr) had lived in said city only a short time before said sales, and knew but few of its people, and was not acquainted with said Lallancc.
The State asked the court to instruct the jury, in substance, that, if they believed the defendant had sold whisky to Lallancc, as set out in the evidence, and that said Lallancc was a person who was in the habit of drinking to intoxication, "then the jury should find the defendant guilty, although they may further find from the evidence that the defendant did not know at the time that said Lallancc was a person who was in the habit of drinking to intoxication, and bad no cause to so believe." The court refused to give tins instruction, and the State excepted.
The only question presented for the decision of this Court is whether or not under the provisions of our statute a licensed liquor-seller or saloon-keeper is guilty and liable to punishment, where he sells spirituous liquor to a person in the habit of drinking to intoxication, even though he does not know and has no reason to believe, that such person has such habit. The language of the statute is as follows: "If any person having a state license to sell spirituous liquors * * * shall sell or give any such liquors or drinks to any minor or person of unsound mind, or to any person who is intoxicated at the time, or who is in the habit of drinking to intoxication, or if he permits any person to drink to intoxication, when he knows or has reason to believe such person is a minor, or of unsound mind, or is intoxicated, or is in the habit of drinking to intoxication, on any premises...
To continue reading
Request your trial