State v. Brewer
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lee 'Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; Under the act of 1901, there was an exception in favor of a person who bought for a friend, but there is no exception in the act of 1907. 102 Ark. 16, does not apply. 1. The word “order” is correctly defined in 29 Cyc. 1509. The agreed statement of facts does not support the indictment. Defendant never solicited any order. 102 Ark. 16 does not apply. 2. The act is highly penal and should be strictly construed. 53 Ark. 334.
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
In the indictment in this case the defendant is charged with soliciting an order from another person for intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and also with receiving such an order in prohibition territory and transmitting said order to a licensed liquor dealer at another place who accepted and filled the order.
The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts before the court sitting as a jury, and the court found in favor of the defendant, and the State appealed.
The statute on which the indictment was based reads as follows:
‘ ‘ Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any liquor dealer,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- New York Ex Rel. Silz v. HesterbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- State v. EarlesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Van Valkinburgh v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. LermenyOregon Supreme Court · 1958
- Baird v. BraySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916