Topper v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 1889 |
| Citation | 20 N.E. 699,118 Ind. 110 |
| Parties | Topper v. State. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Elkhart county; J. M. Vanfleet, Judge.
Jacob J. Topper appeals from a conviction for giving liquor to a minor.
Henry C. Dodge, for appellant. John E. McCloskey and The Attorney General, for appellee.
This prosecution originated before a justice of the peace, and rests on section 2094, Rev. St. 1881, which makes it a misdemeanor to sell, barter, or give away intoxicating liquor to a person under the age of 21 years. The affidavit contains two counts: (1) That the appellant unlawfully gave intoxicating liquor to Harry Kepler, a person under the age of 21 years; (2) that the appellant unlawfully sold intoxicating liquor to Harry Kepler, a person under the age of 21 years. The appellant was adjudged guilty in the circuit court, as charged in the first count of the affidavit. There is but one error assigned, and that is that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The case was tried by a jury, and the reasons assigned for a new trial are as follows: (1) The verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) The verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence; (3) the verdict of the jury is contrary to law.
We have examined the evidence, and are satisfied that the verdict of the jury is clearly right. Indeed, with proper instructions from the court, we cannot imagine how the verdict could have been otherwise, if what Harry Kepler drank at the saloon of the appellant on the occasion in question was lager-beer, and, though there was some conflict in the evidence as to whether it was lager-beer that was sold, we are of the opinion that the jury was justified in so finding.
The evidence, in a nut-shell, is as follows: The appellant kept a saloon, and was his own bar-tender. On the occasion in question one Cunningham was sitting in the saloon, and Harry Kepler came in, he being a boy of the age of 17 years. After a few words had passed between them, Cunningham asked Kepler if he would have something. Kepler said he would, when Cunningham directed the appellant to let Kepler have what he wanted, and, acting under Cunningham's direction, the appellant let Kepler have a sandwich and a glass of beer, which Kepler consumed and Cunningham paid therefor.
As between Cunningham and the appellant, the transaction was a sale, but as between Cunningham and the appellant on the one hand, and Kepler on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kyle v. State
...v. State, 96 Ind. 456;Pierce v. State, 109 Ind. 535, 10 N. E. 302. See, also, Voght v. State, 124 Ind. 358, 24 N. E. 680;Topper v. State, 118 Ind. 110, 20 N. E. 699;Dant v. State, 83 Ind. 60. It is evident that the legislature intended by the section of the statute above quoted to absolutel......
-
Kyle v. The State
...v. State, 96 Ind. 456; Pierce v. State, 109 Ind. 535, 10 N.E. 302; see, also, Voght v. State, 124 Ind. 358, 24 N.E. 680; Topper v. State, 118 Ind. 110, 20 N.E. 699; Dant v. State, 83 Ind. It is evident that the legislature intended by the section of the statute above quoted to absolutely in......