State v. Andrews
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court. I. The court erred in permitting the State to give evidence of a selling in less quantity than a quart and by the drink. (State v. Arbogast, 24 Mo. 368.) II. The court gaye improper instructions on the part of the State and refused proper instructions asked by the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court. I. The court erred in permitting the State to give evidence of a selling in less quantity than a quart and by the drink. (State v. Arbogast, 24 Mo. 368.) II. The court gaye improper instructions on the part of the State and refused proper instructions asked by the defendant. There was no law at the time the indictment was found, nor at the time the defendant sold the liquor by the quart, prohibiting the seller from permitting it to be drank at a place under his control. I. Evidence of sale in less quantities than a quart was properly admitted because the…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
On the 1st of November, 1855, the defendant, in pursuance to the provisions of the act of 1845 concerning groceries and dram-shops and the amendatory act of 1853 (Sess. Acts, 1853, p. Ill) obtained a license as a grocer. By the second section of the act of 1845, a grocer was defined to be a person permitted by law to sell goods, wares, merchandise and intoxicating liquor in any quantity not less than a quart; and his license continued in force one year. The third section of the act of 1845 concerning groceries and dram-shops, prohibited any grocer from selling intoxicating liquors in a less…
2Cited by1 opinion
- State v. FergusonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872