State v. Barnett
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Row. Henry C. Riley, Judge. (1) The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the evidence offered by defendant at the close of the. State’s testimony. State v. Lentz, — Mo. —, 83 S. W. 970; State v. Heckler, 81 Mo. 417; State v. Kurtz, 64 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Row. Henry C. Riley, Judge. (1) The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the evidence offered by defendant at the close of the. State’s testimony. State v. Lentz, — Mo. —, 83 S. W. 970; State v. Heckler, 81 Mo. 417; State v. Kurtz, 64 Mo. App. 123. (2) The defendant was not responsible for the criminal acts óf his agents when made against his orders, and the main point in this case was whether or not defendant in good faith had instructed his agent, Billie Barnett, not to allow music about the premises, and the court erred in not allowing defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
— The defendant was prosecuted and convicted of a violation of section 3018 of the Dram-shop Act, R. S. 1899. The section provides: “A dram-shop keeper shall not keep, exhibit, use or suffer to be kept, exhibited or used in his dramshop, any piano, organ or other musical instrument whatever,” etc. The punishment for a violation of this section is by a *587fine not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars, and in addition thereto the section provides that the dram-shop keeper shall forfeit his license and shall not again be allowed to obtain a license to keep a dramshop for. the term of two years…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Massengale v. RiceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. WalkerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- State v. MeagherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907