Town of Kirkwood v. Autenreith
| Decision Date | 23 February 1886 |
| Citation | 21 Mo.App. 73 |
| Parties | TOWN OF KIRKWOOD, Appellant, v. G. AUTENREITH, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Charles Circuit Court, W. W. EDWARDS, Judge.
Affirmed.
SMITH & HARRISON, for the appellant.
ZACH J. MITCHELL, for the respondent.
This cause was here before and is reported in 11 Mo. App. 515. It is an action for selling liquor without a license. That the defendant was not duly licensed is admitted, and the defence rests on the sole ground that the liquor, if sold, was sold by the defendant's employe, contrary to the defendant's orders. The trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant.
On the former trial which also resulted in a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury to the following effect: “that if a person in the employ of defendant as barkeeper and in the saloon of defendant sold and delivered intoxicating, distilled, or fermented liquor, in less quantity than a quart, then the legal presumption is, unless rebutted by the evidence, that such sale was with the knowledge of defendant.”
This instruction was then refused by the trial court. This court in reviewing such action held the refusal erroneous and reversed the judgment for that reason. In its then opinion this court said: “The evidence made out a prima facie case, if the jury believed the statement of the witness. Under the old dramshop law, where one was charged with having sold wines, liquors, and suffering the same to be drunk in his grocery store, it was held that the fact that the liquors were drunk in the defendant's grocery was presumptive evidence that this was done with his permission. He had control in his house, and if he forbade the drinking it was for him to show it in his own defence. Casey v. The State, 6 Mo. 646.
On the last trial, the court gave the instruction on behalf of the plaintiff, which it had refused at the former trial. In addition to this the court further instructed the jury that if they found that the liquor was sold upon the defendant's premises, at the dates charged, by a person in the defendant's employ, they must find for the plaintiff, unless they further find that it was sold contrary to the defendant's orders and without his knowledge or consent; and that the burden of proof that such orders were given, that they were bona fide, and not colorable, and that the defendant had no knowledge of their violation, was upon the defendant.
Thus it will be seen that the court instructed the jury strictly in accordance with the directions of this court. The instructions were as favorable to the plaintiff as it had any right to demand, unless the sale of liquors on the defendant's premises, by one of the defendant's employes, was not only prima facie, but conclusive,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Industrial Linens Supply Co., Inc. v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, KCD
...interest is the fact that the New York cases just cited rely in part upon the authority of an early Missouri decision, Town of Kirkwood v. Autenreith, 21 Mo.App. 73 (1886), in which it was held that the sale of liquor by an employee is prima facie evidence of liability on the part of the un......
-
Webb City v. Parker
...said by us in Columbia v. Johnson, 72 Mo. App., loc. cit. 237: "This case is in no respect analogous in its facts to that of Kirkwood v. Autenreith, 21 Mo. App. 73, where there were several actions for similar offenses, and the only distinguishing feature of any one offense from the others ......
-
Webb City v. Parker
...As was said by us in Columbia v. Johnson, 72 Mo.App. 232, "this case is in no respect analogous in its facts to that of Kirkwood v. Autenreith, 21 Mo.App. 73, there were several actions for similar offenses and the only distinguishing feature of any one offense from the others was the parti......