State v. Wyl
| Citation | 55 Mo. 67 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. NICK D. WYL, Appelant. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Cole Circuit Court.
Lay & Belch, for Appellant.
H. Clay Ewing, Att'y Gen'l, for Respondent.
This was an indictment against the defendant for selling wine and beer without a license. A jury being waived, there was a trial before the court, and the evidence showed, that defendant had, at different times, and to different persons, sold wine of his own production and manufacture, without having any license authorizing him to sell; that the wine was manufactured or produced from grapes grown by defendant in Cole county, a short distance from Jefferson City where it was sold; that defendant had a house of his own in Jefferson City, not connected with his vineyard or place where the wine was manufactured, and that there he sold the wine, but no other liquors, and that some of the wine after its removal to Jefferson City went through a second fermentation. This was all the evidence in the case.
For the State a declaration of law was given, that although the court might believe that defendant sold only wine of his own growing and production, yet if it should further believe from the evidence that the premises, upon which the sales were made, were not the same where the wine sold was either manufactured or produced, then the defendant should be found guilty.
The court refused an instruction which was mainly the converse of the one above given, which was asked by the defendant, and then rendered judgment for plaintiff.
The decision must be governed by construing the act of 1871, ( ,) which provides that “no person not having a license as dram-shop keeper shall, directly or indirectly, sell beer, cider and native wine, the latter the growth and manufacture of this State, in less quantities than one gallon, without taking out a license as wine and beer-house keeper; provided, however, that this section shall not be construed as authorizing a license to be levied upon, and collected from, any wine grower for selling wine of his own production, in any quantity, on his own premises.”
By the word “premises” in the section is undoubtedly intended the place where the wine was produced or manufactured. The premises for production or manufacture need not necessarily be in or upon the vineyard where the grapes are grown. A man may well have his vineyard at one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kunkel v. Abell
...v. State, 95 Ind. 299;Mace v. Smith, 164 Ind. 152, 154, 72 N. E. 1135; Herrman v. Insurance Company, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 394; State v. Wyl, 55 Mo. 67;State v. Moore (Miss.) 24 South. 308;Downman v. State, 14 Ala. 242;Thompson v. Browne, 10 S. D. 344, 73 N. W. 194. In the Miller Case, supra,......
-
Kunkle v. Abell
... ... definite portion of land and the building and appurtenant ... structures situated thereon, over which the owner or occupant ... [170 Ind. 307] has the right to and does exercise authority ... and control. As said by Elliott, J., in State v ... French (1889), 120 Ind. 229, 230, 22 N.E. 108: ... "The word 'premises' is now commonly used to ... mean 'lands and tenements.'" ... A ... correct and precise description of the location of the town ... lot, or part thereof, upon which is situated the building ... ...
-
State v. Jaeger
...to permit it to be drunk thereon. If this were the case, the keepers of licensed wine and beer houses would not be protected. (State vs. Wyl, 55 Mo. 67.) SHERWOOD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. In this case the indictment was as follows: “The grand jurors of the State of Missou......
-
State v. McNett
...O. Hastings, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State. (1) The sale of the liquor is confined to the "premises" where manufactured. State v. Wyl, 55 Mo. 67, 68; State v. Whissenhunt, 98 N. C. 682, 684, 4 S. E. 533; State v. Prettyman, 3 Har. (2) A member of a firm of licensees cannot sell for his i......