State v. Bach Liquor Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. Tbe witness alone can make the objection that his answer to a question would tend to incriminate him. 13 Ark. 360. Unless witness had failed to inform the vendor of the liquor of his minority, he was guilty of no offense in buying it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. Tbe witness alone can make the objection that his answer to a question would tend to incriminate him. 13 Ark. 360. Unless witness had failed to inform the vendor of the liquor of his minority, he was guilty of no offense in buying it. Sand. & H. Dig., § 1814. Witness and the appellant were “concerned in the commission of a crime or misdemeanor,” within sec. 2909, Sand. & H. Dig., and hence were protected by said statute from having their testimony used against themselves. 13 Ark. 307; 45 Am.. St. Rep. 127; 20 Ark. 106; 14 Ark. 539; 27 Am. St. Rep. 378.…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
On the 11th day of July, 1899, the appellee, a corporation, was indicted by a grand jury of the Jackson circuit court for selling liquor to Ira Erwin, a minor, without the written consent of his parent or guardian. The indictment contains two counts. In the first count the offense was alleged to have been committed as follows: “The said Bach Liquor Company, on the 1st day of June, 1899, in the county and state aforesaid, did unlawfully sell and give away, and be interested in the sale and giving away of, ardent liquors, to-wit: one gill of whiskey to one Ira Erwin, a minor, without the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pleasant v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1855
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. GenovaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Minto v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1913
- Rowe v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1955
- Overman v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1924
- Ex parte ButtSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.