State v. Lillard
| Decision Date | 30 April 1883 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. LILLARD, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Schuyler Circuit Court.--HON. ANDREW ELLISON, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Knott & Gamble for appellant.
D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.
This was an indictment in the Schuyler circuit court for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, in quantities less than one gallon, without taking out a license as a dramshop keeper, and without having any license or legal authority so to do. The indictment was found at the March term, 1879, for a sale made in February preceding. The defendant pleaded not guilty. A trial was had before a jury, and the plaintiff, to sustain the issues on its side, offered evidence tending to show that the defendant in July, 1878, sold to certain persons a “compound,” of which intoxicating liquor was a part, as a beverage. The defendant also offered evidence in his behalf tending to prove that the compound sold, in this case, was a “bitters” composed of different medicines, authorized and stamped by the United States to be sold as a “bitters”--the same being a proprietary medicine--that the United States did not require the dealer to have a license as a liquor dealer to sell the same. This was all the evidence.
The court gave for the plaintiff several instructions to the effect that if the defendant unlawfully sold intoxicating liquors, in less quantities than one gallon, he was guilty, unless he believed, in good faith, the same was for medicinal purposes, and needed as such; that if defendant sold “bitters” of which whisky was a component part, and intoxicating, then the defendant is guilty, unless the same was sold for medicinal purposes and not as a beverage; that a United States government license does not authorize the defendant to sell “bitters” or intoxicating liquors in violation of the laws of the State.
The defendant asked an instruction to the effect that if the article sold, in this case, was a “bitters” put up by the defendant, and authorized and stampted by the United States as a medicine, then the jury must acquit, although said bitters contained liquor and was intoxicating; which the court refused to give.
The defendant was found and adjudged guilty; and after unsuccessful motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment, appealed to this court. The sole question is, did the court err in refusing the above instruction, asked by the defendant, or giving the converse thereof for the State.
The statute law of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wills
... ... 531; ... State v. Castor, 93 Mo. 242; State v ... Taylor, 111 Mo. 538; State v. Bonner, 178 Mo ... 424; State v. Vickers, 209 Mo. 12. (5) We submit ... that the jury should have been allowed to say whether the ... liquids were capable of being used as a beverage. State v ... Lillard, 78 Mo. 136, 23 Cyc. 58 ... Albert ... D. Bennett for respondent ... (1) ... Point 1 in appellant's brief attacks information because ... it fails to give names of persons to whom sales were made. It ... is not necessary. State v. Winfield, 115 Mo. 428 ... ...
- Deardorf's Adm'r v. Thacher
-
State v. Wright
...““original packages of the manufacturers,” and that the act should not apply to the “sale of proprietary medicines.” The case of State v. Lillard (78 Mo. 136), is not applicable in principle. Besides Lillard was indicted in 1879--two years before the act of 1881 was approved. So as to the c......
-
State v. Wright
...for by defendant. The " bitters" in proof were, in the meaning of the dramshop act, intoxicating liquor. Sect. 5461, Rev. Stat.; State v. Lillard, 78 Mo. 136. the act of the legislature in 1879, relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors by druggists, chapter 100, Revised Statutes, it was......