Commonwealth v. Bell
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Cabe 2 — INDICTMENT APPEAL PROM NICHOLAS CRIMINAL COURT. 1. It is incumbent on the vendor of spirituous liquors to know that his customer labors under no disability. (Ulrich v. Commonwealth, 6 Bush, 400.) 2. If the act of March 6,1878 (Acts 1878, vol. 1, p. 81), requires the indictment to use the word “knowingly,” and to charge that the defendant “knowingly,” etc., it changed the law as announced in Ulrich v. Commonwealth, 6 Bush, 400.
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HINES
delivered the opinion of the court.
The failure to allege in the indictment that the appellee knew the party to whom the liquor was sold to be an inebriate, renders it fatally defective. Under the act of March 6, 1878, “ knowingly ” is made an essential ingredient in the offense, and as it must be established by proof in order to a conviction, it follows that the allegation of knowledge on the part of the accused is essential to the validity of the indictment.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Adams Express Co. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Sowder v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1935
- Walker v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
- Crist v. KiltzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939