State v. Gary

• Decision Date: 02 April 1907
• Citation: 124 Mo. App. 175,101 S.W. 614
• Parties: STATE v. GARY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

101 S.W. 614

124 Mo. A. 175

STATE v. GARY.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 2, 1907.

1. INTOXICATING LIQUOR — SALE TO MINOR — PRIMA FACIE CASE.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3015 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1728], forbidding wine growers to dispose of wine to a minor without the consent of his parent, master, or guardian, in a trial for such a sale, the state made a prima facie case by proving a sale to a minor, which could only be overcome by defendant showing the consent of the parent, etc.; it being no excuse that the minor's parents are dead and he has no master nor guardian.

2. SAME—SALE BY WINE GROWER—NECESSITY FOR PROOF.

In a trial for a sale of wine to a minor without the consent of his parent, etc., based on Rev. St. 1899, § 3015 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1728], withholding from wine growers the right to make such a sale, it is essential to a conviction to prove that defendant was a wine grower.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Newton County; F. C. Johnston, Judge.

R. S. Gary was convicted of selling wine to a minor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Stirgis & Ruark, for appellant. R. J. Balch, for the State.

BLAND, P. J.

The information is bottomed on section 3015, Rev. St. 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1728], by which wine growers are permitted to sell wine of their own production, in any quantity, on their own premises, without taking out a dramshop license, "provided, this section shall not be so construed as to give any wine grower the right to sell, give away or otherwise dispose of, or suffer the same to be done on his premises, any wine to any minor without the permission of the parent, master, or guardian of such minor first had and obtained."

The information charges that the defendant, being a wine grower, did, etc., unlawfully sell and dispose of one quart of wine, on his premises, to Thomas Smith, a minor under the age of 21 years, without the permission of his parent, guardian, or master. There was substantially no evidence to show that defendant was a wine grower. It is the law generally in this country that where the sale of intoxicating liquors is prohibited, except under statutory regulations, mere proof by the state of a sale makes a prima facie case against the defendant, to overcome which the defendant must show the sale was made under circumstances permitted by the statute. Thus, on an indictment for selling liquor as a dramshop keeper without a license, the state is not required to show that the defendant had no license, but...