State v. Heard
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Dallas Circuit Court. — Hon. Argus Oox, Judge. (1) The statute is not violated by a sale of whisky, by the gallon, at the place where made. Acts, 1891, p. 132, sec. 24. Anderson’s Law Dictionary, in defining place, says: “The extent of the locality is to be determined by the connection in which the word is used.” Premises on which a distillery is located can not be used as a place for retailing liquors or for carrying on any other business.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Dallas Circuit Court. — Hon. Argus Oox, Judge. (1) The statute is not violated by a sale of whisky, by the gallon, at the place where made. Acts, 1891, p. 132, sec. 24. Anderson’s Law Dictionary, in defining place, says: “The extent of the locality is to be determined by the connection in which the word is used.” Premises on which a distillery is located can not be used as a place for retailing liquors or for carrying on any other business. R. S., U. S., secs. 3266, 3267, 3271, 3274. When the legislature provided that liquors could be sold at the place where made it certainly…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of selling intoxicating liquor in less quantities than three gallons, without having a license as a dramshop keeper. The defense consisted in the fact that defendant was a distiller and that the liquor was whisky which he had made in his distillery and sold, as he contends, at the place where made. The defense is based on section 24, Laws, 1891, page 132, wherein it is provided that: “Intoxicating liquors may be sold in any quantity not less than one gallon, at the place where made, but the maker or seller shall not permit nor suffer the same…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. WylSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. TurnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907