State v. Koontz
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. Ewing Cockrell, Judge. (1) Martin had the right to order and have sent direct to him intoxicating liquors for his own or family use.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. Ewing Cockrell, Judge. (1) Martin had the right to order and have sent direct to him intoxicating liquors for his own or family use. Sec. 7228, R. S. 1909; State ex rel. v. Brewing Co., 270 Mo. 109. (2) Inasmuch as the beer was both ordered and received by Martin in a lawful way and for a lawful purpose, neither the railway company, nor its agent, Koontz, violated any statute in connection with the transportation and delivery of it to Martin. State v. Brown, 188 Mo. App. 248; State v. Rosenberger, 212 Mo. 648; State v. Theodore, 191 S. W. 422; Southern…
1Opinion of the Court
WHITE, C.
The appellant was found guilty of delivering1 liquor to another person, in violation of Section 7227, Revised Statutes 1909. He claimed in defense that he was protected by the exception mentioned *477in Section 7228. The Circuit Judge held that the latter section afforded no protection, because unconstitutional, and the appeal was to this court on account of the constitutional question.
The sections mentioned, together with Section 7226, are a part of the dramshop law of this State, enacted in 1907. The Act of 1907 contained three sections which are now sections 7226, 7227 and 7228,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. WingfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- State v. RawlingsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- State v. RosenbergerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- State v. BurnsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Western Tie & Timber Co. v. PulliamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Brown v. ChildersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1953