State v. Stike

• Citation: 149 Mo. App. 104,129 S.W. 1024
• Parties: STATE v. STIKE.
• Decision Date: 07 July 1910
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

129 S.W. 1024

149 Mo. App. 104

STATE v. STIKE.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

July 7, 1910.

1. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 815)—INSTRUCTIONS.

Where, in a prosecution for selling liquor to a minor, defendant proved that he had in good faith given instructions to his bartender not to sell liquor to minors, that the sale was made by his bartender when defendant was not present, and that he had no knowledge thereof, an instruction that the fact that defendant was not present would not excuse a sale made by his bartender in his absence, but that the act of the bartender, whether in or out of his presence, was the act of defendant, for which he was responsible, and that the jury should find defendant guilty, was erroneous, as ignoring the defense that the sale was made in defendant's absence, without his knowledge, and against his instructions, made in good faith.

2. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 369)—EVIDENCE—OTHER OFFENSES.

In a prosecution for selling liquor to a minor, evidence of sales to a minor other than the one specified in the indictment was inadmissible.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Scott County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

John Stike was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors to a minor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Joe W. Moore and R. A. Kingsburg, for appellant. C. N. Mozley, for the State.

GRAY, J.

The defendant, a dramshop keeper at New Hamburg, in Scott county, was indicted in the circuit court of that county for selling intoxicating liquor to one Sam Bailey, a minor, on the 4th day of April, 1908. On trial before a jury, the defendant was convicted, and he has appealed to this court.

The testimony for the state shows that the defendant was a dramshop keeper, and that on the day alleged in the indictment one Sam Bailey, a minor, purchased four or five glasses of beer from defendant's barkeeper. The state was permitted, over the objection of the defendant, to prove by one Dell Crawford, a minor, that he also purchased intoxicating liquors of the defendant's barkeeper on that day. The defendant offered testimony tending to prove that he had in good faith given instructions to his bartender not to sell intoxicating liquors to minors, and that he was not present on that day when the sales were made, and had no knowledge of them. At the request of the state the court gave the jury the following instruction: "The court instructs the jury, if you believe and find from the evidence that the agent, clerk, or barkeeper sold the beer to one Sam...