State v. Tisdale
| Citation | 55 N.W. 903,54 Minn. 105 |
| Parties | STATE v TISDALE. |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1893 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Upon an indictment for the sale of intoxicating liquors without a license, the prosecution is not obliged to prove the quantity of liquor sold, precisely as laid in the indictment.
2. Where an indictment charged the defendant with selling a specified quantity of brandy and beer, alleged to be intoxicating, an instruction to the jury that California brandy was presumptively spirituous and intoxicating liquor, and that the sale of an article purporting to be beer, at a place where intoxicating liquors were sold, will be presumed to be such beer as is usually kept for sale at such places, held not erroneous. State v. Dick, 50 N. W. Rep. 362,47 Minn. 377, followed.
Appeal from district court, Goodhue county; Williston, Judge.
Harry Tisdale was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor without having a license therefor, and from an order denying a new trial he appeals. Affirmed.
J. C. McClure and F. M. Wilson, for appellant.
H. W. Childs and Geo. B. Edgerton, for the State.
Indictment for selling intoxicating liquors without a license.
1. It is well settled by the decisions of this court that the burden rests upon the defendant, in such cases, to prove that he has a license, and not upon the state to show that he has none.
2. The indictment charges the defendant with selling intoxicating liquors in a quantity less than five gallons, and specifies one-half pint of brandy and six pints of intoxicating malt liquor, commonly called “beer.” If the evidence should show a sale of such liquors within the statutory limit, a verdict of guilty would be warranted, though the quantity sold should differ from that specified; that is to say, it would not be a fatal variance if the proof show that the sale in question was of a greater or less quantity than a half pint of brandy or six pints of beer.
3. It was not error for the court to instruct the jury that, if they found that the defendant sold to the complaining witness California brandy, that was a spirituous and intoxicating liquor. The court will take notice, from the commonly-accepted definition of the word “brandy,” that it is spirituous and intoxicating liquor, whether it be French brandy, California brandy, or any other.
4. The court further charged the jury that if they found from the evidence that, at the place where this sale was made of the brandy, the witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moreno v. State
...(Kansas) State v. May, 52 Kan. 53, 34 Pac. 407; (Kentucky) Locke v. Com. 74 S. W. 654, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 76; (Minnesota) State v. Tisdale, 54 Minn. 105, 55 N. W. 903; (Missouri) State v. Lemp, 16 Mo. 389; (Nebraska) Sothman v. State, 66 Neb. 302, 92 N. W. 303; (New Jersey) Murphy v. Montclair......
-
State v. La Due
...called the liquid alcohol. Courts take judicial knowledge of the fact that whisky and brandy are intoxicating liquors. State v. Tisdale, 54 Minn. 105, 55 N. W. 903; State v. Lewis, 86 Minn. 174, 90 N. W. 318. Courts cannot very well refuse to take knowledge of the fact that the intoxicating......
-
State v. Gibbs
...beer, root beer, or the like, some qualifying word of description would have been used with the word `beer.'" And see State v. Tisdale, 54 Minn. 105, 55 N. W. 903; State v. Gill, 89 Minn. 502, 95 N. W. 449. As to the qualification of police officers as experts on beer, see State v. Olson, 9......
-
Strozier v. State
...Commonwealth, 6 Leigh (Va.) 634; Commonwealth v. Buck, 12 Metc. (53 Mass.) 524. In addition, we are cited to the case of State v. Tisdale, 54 Minn. 105, 55 N. W. 903, and McClain on Criminal Law, § 1273, which cites other This prosecution was had under Act No. 30 of the Acts of 1915, page 9......