State v. Durkem
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Cole Circuit Court, Hon. E. L. Edwards, Judge. Tlie case is stated in the opinion. I. There is no evidence to sustain the verdict. There was no proof of sale of liquor by defendant. II. The instruction given for the state was not law. There was no evidence that any one acted as barkeeper for defendant. Instructions must be based upon the evidence. Again there is no evidence that the indictment was ever filed. III.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cole Circuit Court, Hon. E. L. Edwards, Judge. Tlie case is stated in the opinion. I. There is no evidence to sustain the verdict. There was no proof of sale of liquor by defendant. II. The instruction given for the state was not law. There was no evidence that any one acted as barkeeper for defendant. Instructions must be based upon the evidence. Again there is no evidence that the indictment was ever filed. III. The demurrer interposed by defendant to the evidence, at the close of the state’s case, should have been given. There is no evidence in the record tending to show that…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
Defendant was indicted for selling intoxicating liquor in less quantity than one gallon without a license. Objection is made that the evidence does not sustain the conviction.
An examination of the testimony satisfies us that the objection is not well taken. Though the proof shows sales by defendant’s clerk instead of by defendant himself, it yet sustains the indictment. Either may be indicted. Schmidt v. State, 14 Mo. 103. Proof of a sale .by the clerk makes aprima facie case against the principal, and if he wishes to escape he must rebut it by proof, showing that the sale was without his…
2Cited by5 opinions
- City of St. Louis v. WeitzelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- State v. MeagherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- State v. MortonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- State v. CrawfordMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- State v. ColemanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954