Schmidt v. State
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Criminal Court. I. If the defendant sold by his clerk or agent, he is liable as well as the clerk. Hays vs.^ the State, decided at the last May term of this court. II. Nor did the court err in instructing the jury that it was incumbent upon the defendant to produce his license to sell, and in default thereof they must find that he had no license authorizing him to sell.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Criminal Court. I. If the defendant sold by his clerk or agent, he is liable as well as the clerk. Hays vs.^ the State, decided at the last May term of this court. II. Nor did the court err in instructing the jury that it was incumbent upon the defendant to produce his license to sell, and in default thereof they must find that he had no license authorizing him to sell. Wheat vs, the State, 6 Mo. 455. The action of the court below touching the question of evidence cannot be reversed by this court, because the evidence is not preserved. The court rightfully overruled the…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, J.
This case presents the instructions given below for our adjudication.
The evidence is not saved nor presented to us. We presume the evidence justified the court in giving the instructions : if so, we must believe there was proof that the clerk of the defendant by his directions and' under his control and employment sold the intoxicating or spiritous liquors mentioned in the indictment, and that there was no license to the defendant authorizing him to sell, &c.
We find no fault with the instructions given. The grand jury might indict either the master or the clerk, and having indicted the…
2Cited by19 opinions
- City of St. Louis v. WeitzelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Ex Parte CainSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- State v. DentWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Early v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1906
- State v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.