Taylor v. State

• Decision Date: 08 December 1900
• Citation: 60 S.W. 33
• Parties: TAYLOR v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 33

60 S.W. 33

TAYLOR v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 8, 1900.

Appeal from circuit court, Lee county; Hance N. Hutton, Judge.

Arthur Taylor was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors without a license, and he appeals. Reversed.

Arthur Taylor was indicted for selling intoxicating liquors without license. One Williams testified that Taylor hired a buggy from him, for which he was to pay $2. Taylor paid witness $1.50, and said to witness that he would pay the balance soon. To this witness replied, "I will take the balance in beer." Taylor said "he didn't have any beer right then, but could get me some. I told him, `All right.'" That evening or next day Taylor delivered the beer to witness. Taylor, in his own behalf, testified in part as follows: "Last summer I owed Mr. Williams $2. I went to pay him, and gave him $1.50, and still owed him 50 cents. He asked me if I could get him some beer with the balance of 50 cents, and I told him I would do so. The next day I went out to the saloon of W. H. Lewis, who is a licensed liquor dealer, about five miles from town, and bought six bottles of beer, paying 50 cents for it. I bought it for Mr. Williams." He further testified that he was not employed by the saloon keeper, but was running his wagon on his own account, and charging the purchasers for bringing in their orders. In addition to a short written instruction which correctly stated the law so far as it went, the court gave to the jury the following oral instruction: "If the jury find from the testimony that no money was given by the prosecuting witness, Williams, to the defendant, with instructions to buy beer with it, but that witness said to defendant that defendant might get witness beer for the balance he owed him, then defendant would be guilty, even though defendant bought the beer from a licensed saloon and delivered it to Williams. If the defendant owed Williams fifty cents, and Williams told defendant to get him some beer for it, and gave defendant no instructions to buy it for him from a licensed dealer, then defendant would be guilty, if you further find that he bought the beer and delivered it to Williams. And it would be no defense that he bought it from a licensed dealer." The defendant was convicted and fined $500, from which judgment he appealed.

H. F. Roleson, for appellant. Jeff Davis, Atty. Gen., and Charles Jacobson, for the State.

RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts).

The defendant was indicted and tried for an unlawful sale of beer to one Williams. His defense was that he did not sell the beer he was accused of selling, but purchased it for Williams at his request, and with money that he owed Williams. It is not...