Sarrls v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 49 — INDICTMENT— APPEAL PROM HENRY CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The statute under which the indictment was found is unconstitutional, because it confers an exclusive privilege upon physicians-residing in the town of New Castle.
Read the full summary
Case 49 — INDICTMENT— APPEAL PROM HENRY CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The statute under which the indictment was found is unconstitutional, because it confers an exclusive privilege upon physicians-residing in the town of New Castle. (Gordon v. Winchester Building Asso., 12 Bush.) 2. The indictment is bad because it charges three separate and distinct' offenses, the charge being that the defendant “did sell, lend, and give spirituous, vinous and malt liquors.” 3. The act under which the indictment was found creates two separate- and distinct offenses, the unlawful selling of the liquor and the-failure of…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
delivered the opinion oe the court.
The offense charged in the indictment in this cas©' is unlawfully selling and giving to another person spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors without license ^ *329within the corporate limits of the town of New Castle,, said liquors, as charged, not being necessary to the person to whom they were alleged to have been sold and given as medicine, nor prescribed by a physician, for that purpose.
The indictment was found under an act of the General Assembly, entitled “An act-to prohibit the.selling, lending, or giving of spirituóus, vinous or malt liquors to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Anderson v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1877
3Cited by7 opinions
- Motlow v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1911
- Commonwealth v. FowlerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1894
- Stickrod v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887
- In Re HixsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Lambert v. YellowleyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.