Turner v. State

• Decision Date: 13 December 1910
• Docket Number: No. 21,741.,21,741.
• Citation: 175 Ind. 1,93 N.E. 225
• Parties: TURNER v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

175 Ind. 1

93 N.E. 225

TURNER

v.STATE.

No. 21,741.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 13, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hamilton County; Meade Vestal, Judge.

William A. Turner was convicted for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and appeals. Affirmed.Christian & Christian, for appellant. James Bingham, A. G. Cavins, E. M. White, and W. H. Thompson, for the State.

JORDAN, J.

The state instituted this prosecution in the lower court against appellant upon an affidavit charging the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. The affidavit alleged that: “Ivan R. Godwin, being duly sworn, upon his oath says that, as he is informed and believes, Buff Turner, a person whose true name is unknown to affiant, on the 8th day of February, 1910, at the county of Hamilton and state of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully sell to Louis Wien one pint of beer at and for the price of ten cents; he, the said Buff Turner, not then and there being licensed under the laws of the state of Indiana to sell spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors.” Appellant moved to quash the affidavit upon the ground that it did not state an offense. His motion was overruled, to which he excepted. Trial by the court; finding of guilty; and his punishment assessed at $100. Over his motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, judgment was rendered upon the finding of the court. He appeals and assigns as errors the overruling of the motion to quash the affidavit and the overruling of the motion for a new trial.

The argument of appellant's counsel in regard to the insufficiency of the affidavit is somewhat confused, and we are not clearly advised thereby in respect to the deficiency urged against the pleading; but, as we view their argument, it is that the liquor charged to have been sold is not shown to have been of the kind or character which would have required appellant to have a license under the laws of this state in order to lawfully sell the same. It will be noted that the affidavit charges appellant with the unlawful sale of a pint of beer for the price of 10 cents to the person therein mentioned at the time and place stated. The absence of a license held by him is duly negatived by the averments of the pleading. The affidavit, considered as a whole, certainly discloses that the liquor with which it is dealing and which it charges to have been sold by appellant is malt liquor. The primary meaning of the term “beer,” as held by this court in Myers v. State, 93...