State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 31 October 1880 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Appellant, v. TAYLOR. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court.--HON. S. A. RICHARDSON, Judge.
REVERSED.
The indictment charged the defendant with selling intoxicating liquors to certain persons therein named, in less quantities than a gallon, “without him, the said John T. Taylor, then and there having a dramshop keeper's license in force authorizing him, the said John T. Taylor, to sell intoxicating liquors in less quantities than one gallon, contrary, etc., against,” etc.
J. L. Smith, Attorney General, for the State, cited State v. Shiflett, 20 Mo. 415; State v. Batson, 31 Mo. 343; State v. Cox, 32 Mo. 566 State v. Meek, 70 Mo. 355.
“Where an offense is created by statute, and an exception is made, either by another statute or by another and substantial clause of the same statute, it is not necessary for the prosecutor, either in the indictment or by evidence, to show that the defendant does not come within the exception; but it is for the defendant to prove the affirmative, and which he may do under the plea of not guilty.” 1 Archbold Cr. Pr. & Pl., 118; Ib., 86. The indictment here is framed under section 2, 1 Wagner's Statutes, page 549: “No person shall, directly or indirectly, sell intoxicating liquors in any quantity less than one gallon, without taking out a license as a dramshop keeper.” It will be observed here that the indictment charges the offense defined in section 2, supra, and that such section contains no exceptions. It was unnecessary, therefore, under the rule laid down at the outset of this opinion, to negative any exception not contained in such section. The point urged in the motion in arrest, that the indictment did not “negative either specially or generally the authority of the defendant to sell intoxicating liquors as a druggist or otherwise,” was consequently untenable, and that motion should have been denied. State v. Cox, 32 Mo. 566, and other cases cited by the State. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Van Vliet
... ... 570, 26 N.W. 770. And if a statute ... prohibits the sale of liquor under certain circumstances, and ... in another section or proviso authorizes a druggist to sell ... with or without a license, it is not necessary to allege that ... the defendant was not a druggist. State v. Taylor, ... 73 Mo. 52; People v. Robbins, 70 Mich. 130, 37 N.W ... 924; State v. Jaques, 68 Mo. 260. It has also been ... held, under license laws, that if the question of license is ... not material to the offense, if the elements of the offense ... are complete without the [92 Iowa 479] additional ... ...
-
State v. Van Vliet
...authorizes a druggist to sell with or without a license, it is not necessary to allege that the defendant was not a druggist. State v. Taylor, 73 Mo. 52;People v. Robbins, 70 Mich. 130, 37 N. W. 924;State v. Jaques, 68 Mo. 260. It has also been held, under license laws, that if the question......
-
Miller v. Barnett
... ... v. Lumber Co., 39 Mo.App. 219; Brown ... v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475; Burton v. Driggs, 87 U.S ... 133; Error is presumptively prejudicial. State v ... Taylor, 118 Mo. 161; Morton v. Heridorn, 135 ... Mo. 617. (2) That it is the duty of the court to define ... technical terms used in ... ...
-
State v. O'Brien
...D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State, cited 1 Archb. Crim. Prac. and Plead., 86, 118; State v. Cox, 32 Mo. 566; State v. Taylor, 73 Mo. 52; 1 Chitty Crim. Law, 283 b. J. C. Noell for respondent. HOUGH, J. The defendant was indicted for practicing medicine in violation of section ......