State v. Parady

Decision Date09 October 1931
Citation156 A. 381
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Exceptions from Superior Court, York County.

Proceeding against Thomas Parady for sale of intoxicating liquors. Defendant brings exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.


Ralph W. Hawkes, Co. Atty., of York Village, for the State.

Waterhouse, Titcomb & Siddall, of Sanford, for defendant.


Exceptions. Sale of intoxicating liquor. A prohibition agent visited respondent's office in company with an acquaintance of the latter and claimed to have purchased from respondent a quart of intoxicating liquor.

Respondent, recalling the incident, denied a sale to the officer, but claimed that he delivered the liquor on the day in question to his acquaintance, receiving pay therefor, in pursuance of an arrangement previously made that he (respondent) would procure the liquor for his friend, and that in purchasing the same, making delivery thereof and being reimbursed for his expenditure, he had acted solely as agent for the real purchaser.

The presiding justice declined to submit that question to the jury, in substance ruling that it did not constitute a defense. In this he erred.

The statute alleged to have been violated, chapter 137, § 6, Rev. St. 1030, reads: "No person shall at any time, by himself, his clerk, servant, or agent, directly or indirectly, sell any intoxicating liquor."

Statutes have been enacted in many states, including Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina, making it an offense against the prohibitory law to purchase liquor for another or to procure it and deliver it to another, but there is no such law in this state.

The prosecuting attorney cites in his brief chapter 206, Pub. Laws 1923, as containing the clause, "Any person who aids in the sale of intoxicating liquor by acting as agent or otherwise, either for the seller or buyer, or in any manner assists in violating the provisions of law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor is equally guilty."

The quotation is incorrect. The words "either for the seller or buyer" do not appear in the final enactment. Whether they were omitted by accident or design we cannot say. In any event, we cannot supply them. It is not a criminal offense, in this state, to purchase liquor either for the use of the purchaser or as an agent or messenger of another. State v. Ennis, 121 Me. 596, 118 A. 422.


To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Allen
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 16 Junio 1972
    ...supports his argument with this Court's rationale when dealing with prosecutions for violation of the liquor law. See, State v. Parady, 1031, 130 Me. 371, 156 A. 381; State v. Kilbreth, 1932, 131 Me. 489, 159 A. 504. These cases were decided under very different statutes. In the prohibition......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 24 Septiembre 1946
    ...N.S., 268; Witherspoon v. State, 1929, 179 Ark. 647, 17 S.W.2d 307;Perkins v. State, 1928, 37 Ga.App. 804, 142 S.E. 212;State v. Parady, 1931, 130 Me. 371, 156 A. 381;McBee v. State, 1932, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 279, 44 S.W.2d 699;Winans v. State, 1933, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 123, 61 S.W.2d 114; 30 Am.Jur. 4......
  • State v. Mansir
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 13 Enero 1982
    ...In the halcyon days of prohibition such a defense was available in prosecutions for illegal sale of liquor. See State v. Parady, 130 Me. 371, 156 A. 381 (1931). ...
  • State v. Kilbreth
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 21 Marzo 1932
    ...charged him with the sale of it. The requested instruction in so far as it embodied such a statement of the law was proper. State v. Parady, 130 Me. 371, 156 A. 381; State v. Ennis, 121 Me. 596, 118 A. 422. A reading of the judge's charge, however, which is printed in full, indicates that h......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT