State v. Brown
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court; Eugene Lankford, Judge; The instruction asked by the State ought to have been given. The conclusion is irresistible that the transactions between the appellee and McNeeley constituted a mere subterfuge to cover up a sale.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court; Eugene Lankford, Judge; The instruction asked by the State ought to have been given. The conclusion is irresistible that the transactions between the appellee and McNeeley constituted a mere subterfuge to cover up a sale. Kirby’s Digest, § 5112. The instruction was properly refused because it excludes from consideration McNeeley’s statement that he gave appellee the money, not in payment for .the whisky received, but as his agent to buy other whisky. A bona fide loan of whisky does not come within the meaning of the statute. See Kirby’s Digest, § 51x2. One…
1Opinion of the CourtHirr, C. J.
Harry Brown was indicted in Arkansas County for selling liquor without license to one McNeeley. Both State and defendant rested upon the testimony of McNeeley, which was in substance as follows: He went to a livery stable in which Brown was employed as a hostler, and saw Brown with two bottles of whisky, in his pocket. He asked Brown to sell him some whisky, and Brown replied he could not, but that he would loan him some, and he told Brown to let him have one or two bottles. Brown then let him have the two bottles. Nothing was said as to when it should be returned or paid for. About an hour…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cooper v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881
- Gillan v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Robinson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- Ramsey v. WhitbeckAppellate Court of Illinois · 1899
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sluder v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907