State v. Lemp
| Decision Date | 31 March 1852 |
| Citation | 16 Mo. 389 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. ADAM LEMP, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Under the amendatory act of 1851, every fermented drink is an intoxicating drink, within the meaning of the act to regulate groceries and dram-shops, approved March 25th, 1845.
2. No person can sell intoxicating liquor without a license, even though it is of domestic manufacture.
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
Lackland, for State.
The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the special plea of defendant. There is no provision in the law for the encouragement of home or domestic manufactures of this character, as assumed in the plea. The sale of intoxicating drinks is a matter of police regulation, and it is deemed useless to refer this court to authorities to prove that the state has the power to license, tax, and suppress the sale of such commodities.
The first instruction given is correct. There is no exception in the law in favor of the manufacturer of intoxicating drinks. There was no error committed in giving the second instruction. The third section of the act to amend “An act to regulate groceries and dram-shops, approved March 25th, 1845” (Session acts of 1851, page 216), provides that “all fermented drinks, and wines of every kind, shall be considered intoxicating, under the provisions of this act, and the act to which this is amendatory.” It is clear that the manner in which the drink is made, i. e., by fermentation, settles the question whether it is intoxicating, without regard to the actual effect of the drink when taken. And so the second instruction declares the law to be.
The defendant was indicted for selling without license, ale, beer, porter, rum, gin, brandy, whisky and wine in small quantities, one gill and one glass of each, in St. Louis county. He appeared, and filed his special plea that he sold beer and ale only, and not the other liquors, and that the beer and ale were made by him in the city and county of St. Louis, within the State of Missouri, and not elsewhere. The State demurred to this plea. The Criminal Court sustained the demurrer, and required the defendant to answer over. He then plead not guilty. There was an issue on this plea, and verdict for the State. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and an appeal taken to the Supreme Court.
The bill of exceptions shows that the defendant sold beer within the time mentioned in the indictment; that he keeps a beer house in the city of St. Louis; that he sold beer by the glass, and received pay for it, and that beer is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bixman
...first received the privilege or a license so to do from the lawful authorities of the state. In that and the subsequent cases of State v. Lemp, 16 Mo. 389, and State v. Searcy, 20 Mo. 489, it was ruled that the state has a right, in the exercise of its police power, to prohibit the sale of ......
-
State v. Parker Distilling Co.
...having received the privilege or a license so to do from the lawful authorities of the state. In that case and in the cases of State v. Lemp, 16 Mo. 389, and State v. Searcy, 20 Mo. 489, it was ruled that the state has a right, in the exercise of its police power, to prohibit the sale of in......
-
Moreno v. State
...365; Killip v. McKay, 13 N. Y. St. Rep. 5; People v. Wheelock, 3 Parker, Cr. R. (N. Y.) 9; Murphy v. Montclair, 39 N. J. Law, 673; State v. Lemp, 16 Mo. 389; State v. Houts, 36 Mo. App. 265; State v. Teissedre, 30 Kan. 476, 2 Pac. 650; Douglas v. State, 21 Ind. App. 302, 52 N. E. 238; State......
-
State v. Parker Distilling Company
...v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 37; Black on Intoxicating Liquors, secs. 31, 39, 46, 55, 107, 108, 109, 114, 115; State v. Austin, 10 Mo. 591; State v. Lemp, 16 Mo. 389; State v. 20 Mo. 489; State v. Hudson, 78 Mo. 302; Higgins v. Talty, 157 Mo. 280; State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1. Where the Legislature has......