Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 20 December 1890 |
| Citation | 91 Ala. 14,8 So. 668 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Conecuh county; JOHN P. HUBBARD, Judge.
Stallworth & Burnett, for appellant.
W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The statute under which the defendant was indicted is penal in its character, in derogation of the common law, and cannot be extended by construction beyond its terms. The statute is local in its application, and prohibits the selling or giving away of spirituous liquor within certain described limits. The indictment charges that the defendant sold vinous or spirituous liquors without a license, and contrary to law and was found under section 4037 of the Code, which provides that, in an indictment for retailing spirituous liquors, it is sufficient to charge that the defendant sold spirituous liquors without a license and contrary to law, and, for any violation of any special and local laws regulating or prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquors, such form shall be held good and sufficient. The evidence shows that the defendant did not sell, but gave away, the liquors for which he was indicted. The question then arises, can a man be convicted for giving away liquor contrary to the statute under an indictment for "selling?" As stated before, the statute is penal, and cannot be made to embrace by construction any case not within its meaning. We have been unable to find any case where a person was convicted of "selling liquor," upon proof of "giving" away the liquor merely.
In Siegel v. People, 106 Ill. 94, where a party was indicted for selling liquor to a minor, in violation of a statute which prohibited the selling or giving intoxicating liquors to a minor, it was held that the indictment could not be sustained by proof of "giving" the liquor to a minor; that the word "sell" had a well-known legal significance,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Richardson
... ... Pringle, he ... testified that he was a justice of the peace of Mobile ... county, and tried the case of the state against Richardson, ... the plaintiff, with Mr. Taylor. The attorney for the ... plaintiff then asked the witness, "What was the evidence ... should have been allowed to go to the jury. New Decatur ... v. Lande, 93 Ala. 84, 9 South. Rep. 382; Williams v ... State, 91 Ala. 14, 8 South. Rep. 668; Pryor v ... Railroad Co., 90 Ala. 32, 8 South. Rep. 55; Lynch v ... State, 89 Ala. 18, 7 South ... ...
-
Guarreno v. State
...count should be confined to a sale. Powel's Case, 69 Ala. 10; Boon's Case, Id. 226; Olmstead's Case, 89 Ala. 16, 7 So. 775; Williams' Case, 91 Ala. 14, 8 So. 668; Case, 95 Ala. 25, 11 So. 69; Code 1896, § 5077. The words, "within the place specified," found in the latter part of section 507......
-
Whaley v. State
... ... does aver that the defendant unlawfully transported ... prohibited liquors, and to sustain this charge proof that ... such liquors were transported for another in violation of the ... statute is essential to a conviction. Acts Sp.Sess.1909, §§ ... 29-33, pp. 92-94; Williams v. State, 91 Ala. 14, 8 ... So. 668; Tarkins v. State, 108 Ala. 17, 19 So. 24 ... While ... it is necessary for the proof to show that the offense was ... committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, ... it is not an essential averment in the indictment or ... ...
-
Bouyer v. City of Enterprise
...business of a retail dealer in them, without a license. It did not prohibit the giving away of such liquors, for instance. Williams v. State, 91 Ala. 14, 8 So. 668; 23 Cyc. 181. It did not evidence the existence of such municipal law as was charged by the complaint or affidavit to have been......