State v. Wahl

• Decision Date: 11 May 1909
• Citation: 137 Mo. App. 651,119 S.W. 453
• Parties: STATE v. WAHL.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

119 S.W. 453

137 Mo. App. 651

STATE v. WAHL.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 11, 1909.

Rehearing Denied May 25, 1909.

1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 236)—SALE— EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY.

The facts that defendant's employé rolled a keg of beer out of the establishment of which defendant was manager, and the alleged purchaser was in the act of shouldering it when an officer interfered, are evidence of delivery to the alleged purchaser.

2. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 236)—SALE ON SUNDAY—EVIDENCE.

Evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction of sale of liquor on Sunday.

3. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 163)—ILLEGAL SALE—QUANTITY SOLD.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 2243 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1421), making it a misdemeanor to "sell or retail" intoxicating liquor on Sunday, the quantity sold is immaterial.

4. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1169)—APPEAL—HARMLESS ERROR—ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE.

A conviction of selling intoxicating liquors unlawfully will not be reversed for the admission of irrelevant evidence, where the case was tried by the court and the declarations of law indicate that such evidence did not affect the result.

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

James S. Wahl was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor unlawfully, and appeals. Affirmed.

Faris & Oliver, for appellant. B. A. McKay, for the State.

GOODE, J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the statute which says if any person shall sell or retail any liquor, fermented or distilled, on the first day of the week, commonly called "Sunday," he shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined not to exceed $50. Rev. St. 1899, § 2243 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1421). In substance, the information charged appellant with selling to F. M. Ladd one keg of beer for the price of $3. Appellant was agent of the Lemp Brewing Company in the city of Caruthersville. He was also manager of a cold-storage establishment where the beer handled by him for the brewing company was kept, and hired the employés, or some of them, who handled the beer in said establishment. Ladd testified he and other persons had arranged on Saturday night, November 2d, to get a keg of beer from appellant, to be delivered the next day, or Sunday, November 3d, the date laid in the information. The parties interested made up the price and turned it over to Ladd, who attended to the purchase from Wahl. On Sunday morning, November 3d, Ladd met Wahl in the post office and paid him $3.25, but they both testified this money, though it was the exact price of the beer Ladd got that day, was not paid for said beer, but for another keg he and his companions had bought some time before. The same parties bought beer regularly every week, and took it from cold storage on Sunday. As to the delivery of beer on the particular Sunday, Ladd testified a man who had been an employé of appellant got it out of cold storage and delivered it to him (Ladd); that Wahl did not tell him said party would get the beer for him, or did not tell him so "in that conversation" (i. e., the one held in the post office when a payment was made). It turned out the man who delivered the beer in question was named Jones, and the city marshal swore said Jones had a key to the...