網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

In a prosecution for keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of this section, an instruction relating to the form of the verdict and informing the jury that if they find defendant guilty and should deem a fine and imprisonment on the state farm to be the proper penalty, they should state in the verdict the amount of the fine and the length of the imprisonment, was held proper. Meno v. State, 186 Ind. 4, 114 N. E. 689.

In a prosecution for keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of this section it was held not improper to set out in an instruction that part of this section on which the prosecution was based. Meno v. State, 186 Ind. 4, 114 N. E. 689.

In a prosecution for keeping a place where intoxicating liquors were sold in violation of this section, an instruction which set out the provisions of section 9926h, permitting commitment to the state farm of persons convicted of a violation of the criminal laws, where the punishment includes imprisonment, was held not improper. Meno v. State, 186 Ind. 4, 114 N. E. 689.

In a prosecution for keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of this section, an instruction which indicates the form of the verdict including the penalty prescribed, was held proper. Meno v. State, 186 Ind. 4, 114 N. E. 689.

In a prosecution for keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of this section, an instruction which provides a form of verdict in case of imprisonment in the county jail for sixty days or less was fixed upon as the proper punishment, and indicating other forms of verdicts of acquittal and for varying degrees of guilt, was held not improper. Meno v. State, 186 Ind. 4, 114 N. E. 689. A joint verdict, in a prosecution under this section, finding each of four defendants guilty as charged, and fixing the punishment of each at a fine of $400 and imprisonment on the state farm for one hundred fifty days, was held not contrary to law. Meno v. State, 186 Ind. 4, 114 N. E. 689.

In a prosecution under this section, the evidence was held sufficient to sustain a conviction of keeping and operating a place where intoxicating liquors were sold contrary to law. Eaton v. State, 186 Ind. 167, 115 N. E. 329.

In a prosecution under this section for a liquor nuisance, it must appear that accused had the custody, control and possession of the liquors, and that he kept them in a building for the purpose of sale, before applying section 8345, making the keeping of liquors in a room prima facie evidence that they were kept for sale. Eaton v. State, 186 Ind. 167, 115 N. E. 329.

Refusal to strike an allegation of a prior conviction and the permission of the prosecuting attorney to read such allegation to the jury, was held to constitute reversible error. Torphy v. State, 187 Ind. 73, 118 N. E. 355.

An allegation in an indictment for unlawfully keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold, alleging a second conviction under such a charge, will be treated as surplusage, since the statute makes no provision therefor, and under section 3231, it may be stricken out. Torphy v. State, 187 Ind. 73, 118 N. E. 355. In a prosecution under this section, where the gravamen of the offense is the keeping, running and operating a place where intoxicating liquors are permitted to be sold in violation of law, the rule relating to the violation of law by a proprietor of a saloon for selling intoxicating liquor to a minor has no application. Dugan v. State, 187 Ind. 32, 118 N. E. 307.

A finding in a prosecution under this section for keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of law, that the alleged sale was not at defendant's bar, but in an adjoining room, was held supported by the evidence. Barry v. State, 187 Ind. 49, 118 N. E. 309.

In a prosecution under this section for unlawful sales of intoxicating liquor, evidence is admissible of all kinds of unlawful sales of such liquor, and no specific sale need be charged or proved. Anderson v. State, 187 Ind. 94, 118 N. E. 567. Under this section, one is guilty of a continuing offense by running and operating a place where intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of law. Anderson v State, 187 Ind. 94, 118 N. E. 567.

Where one has been convicted under this section for keeping a place for the sale of intoxicating liquor in violation of law, it is a bar to subsequent prosecution under section 2498 where the only evidence introduced in the subsequent prosecution would have sustained a conviction in the former prosecution. Anderson v. State, 187 Ind. 94, 118 N. E. 567.

An indictment charging that defendant in a certain county of the state on a named date kept, ran, and operated a place where intoxicating liquors were then and there unlawfully sold, was held sufficient under this section. Haymond v. State, 187 Ind. 267, 119 N. E. 5.

It is not necessary that an indictment for operating a place where intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of this section should negative the defense of possession of a license. Scherer v. State, 188 Ind. 14, 121 N. E. 369.

Evidence of keeping, running and operating a place where intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of this statute, held insufficient. Gable v. State, 187 Ind. 706, 121 N. E. 113.

8352. Druggist, pharmacist, quart sale, prescription.

In the charging of an unlawful sale of liquors by a druggist under this section, it need not be alleged that the accused is a licensed druggist. State v. Cameron, 176 Ind. 385, 96 N. E. 150.

To justify a druggist in selling intoxicating liquors without a prescription from a physician, the provisions of this section must be fully complied with. Hawks v. State, 176 Ind. 602, 96 N. E. 593.

The act of 1908, known as the local option liquor law, did not have the effect of abating actions that were pending against liquor sellers on their bonds for unlawful sales of liquors. American Surety Co. v. State ex rel., 50 App. 475, 98 N. E. 829.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

[Acts 1917, p. 15. In force April 2, 1918.]

8356a. Purpose of act, construction.-1. That this act shall be deemed an exercise of the police powers of the state, for the protection of the economic welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the state, and all of its provisions shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of that purpose.

8356b. Intoxicating liquor defined.-2.. The words "intoxicating liquor" as used in this act shall be construed to mean all malt, vinous, or spirituous liquor, containing so much as one half of 1 per cent. of alcohol by volume, or any other intoxicating drink, mixture or preparation of like nature; and all mixtures or preparations containing such intoxicating liquor, whether patented or not, reasonably likely or intended to be used as a beverage, and all other beverages containing so much as one-half (12) of 1 per cent. of alcohol by volume.

8356c. "Person" defined.-3. The word "person" wherever used in this act, shall be held and construed to mean and include persons, firms and corporations, and all associations of natural persons incorporated or unincorporated, whether acting by themselves or by a servant, agent or employé.

[Acts 1921, p. 736. In force May 31, 1921.]

8356d. Penalties for unlawful manufacture, sale, etc.-4. It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, transport [,] possess, sell, barter, exchange, give away, furnish or otherwise dispose of any intoxicating liquor, or to possess or keep any intoxicating liquors with intent to sell, barter, exchange, give away, furnish or otherwise dispose of the same, except as in this act provided, or for any person to have or possess any still, device or property for the manufacture of liquor intended for use in violation of the laws of this state. And

it shall also be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell at retail for beverage purposes any preparation containing alcohol, although such preparation is not included in the definition of intoxicating liquors in this act, or to sell the same under circumstances from which the sellers might reasonably deduce the intention of the purchaser to use. such preparation for beverage purposes. Any person violating this section, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than one hundred ($100) dollars and not more than five hundred ($500) dollars, and to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than six (6) months, for the first offense, and shall be fined not less than two hundred ($200) dollars nor more than five hundred ($500) dollars and imprisoned in the county jail not less than sixty (60) days nor more than six (6) months for the second or any subsequent offense.

This section amends section 8356d Supplement of 1918, being section 4, Acts 1917, p. 15.

This statute is general in its application and not confined to sales of bonded liquor. State v. Sarlin, 188 Ind. 359, 123 N. E. 800.

See note to section 8356t.

An indictment under this section is defective for uncertainty where the several purposes for which the liquors were kept are joined by "or" instead of "and." Young v. State, 188 Ind. 505, 124 N. E. 679.

On a prosecution on an affidavit under this section and sections 83560, 8356t, 835611, a judgment on the general finding of guilty is authorized. Barksdale v. State, - Ind., 125 N. E. 515.

Ind.

In a prosecution under this section an owner of soft drink parlor aiding sale by servant is guilty as principal. Thompson v. State, 125 N. E. 641. In a prosecution under this section, complicity of the owner of soft drink parlor with the servant selling liquor must be shown. Thompson v. State, Ind., 125 N. E. 641.

In prosecution for sale of liquor under this section, evidence of other sales is admissible. Thompson v. State, Ind., 125 N. E. 641.

It was competent to prove that the offense under this section was committed within two years immediately preceding the filing of the affidavit. Zoller v. State, Ind. 1 126 N. E. 1. See section 1890.

The enforcement of this section is aided by rule of evidence established to sustain a charge of unlawful keeping, etc., in section 35 (802011). Reed v. State. Ind., 126 N. E. 6; Ward v. State, Ind 125 N. E. 397.

On prima facie case, and evidence sufficient to break down prima facie case. Wukina v. State, Ind -, 128 N. E. 435.

To keep an intoxicating liquor with intent to "furnish or otherwise dispose of the same" excent as by law provided, is unlawful. Ford v. State, Ind. 129 N. E. 625.

8356e. Manufacture for domestic use.-5. The provision of this act shall not be construed to prohibit the manufacture of vinegar and non-intoxicating cider for use or sale; or to prohibit the manufacture

and sale of pure grain alcohol for medicinal, scientific or mechanical purpose, or wine for sacramental purposes as herein provided, or to prohibit the manufacture and sale of denatured alcohol. Nor shall it prohibit a wholesale druggist from selling pure grain alcohol in quantities of not less than one (1) gallon at a time to any registered pharmacist holding a permit as herein provided, or to the officer of any public or charitable hospital or to any medical or other college, for medical, mechanical or scientific purposes, and only upon the written. and signed application of such officer, as provided in this act. Nor shall this act be construed to prohibit a registered pharmacist, if licensed and bonded as provided in this act, from selling alcohol for medicinal purposes, upon the prescription of a licensed physician, or wine for sacramental purposes, upon the order of a clergyman, or from selling alcohol for mechanical or chemical purposes only, as herein provided.

This section amends section 8356e Supplement of 1918, being section 5, Acts 1917, p. 15.

8356f. Permit by clerk of circuit court, fee.-6. It shall be unlawful for any pharmacist to sell any intoxicating liquor, except pure grain or ethyl alcohol, and such alcohol only for medicinal or mechanical purposes, and wine for sacramental purposes only, and it shall be unlawful for such pharmacist to sell such alcohol or wine unless such pharmacist holds a permit to do so from the clerk of the circuit court of the county in which he desires to do business. Any pharmacist licensed as such by the state board of pharmacy desiring to sell pure grain alcohol for medicinal or mechanical purposes or wine for sacramental purposes shall file his verified application setting forth the particular place where said business is located; that said applicant is a registered pharmacist under the laws of this state and is lawfully in good faith engaged personally in the business, of a pharmacist at the place designated in said application as the proprietor or partner or if the business is owned by a corporation, that the applicant is the manager of such business and that said applicant has in his said business, exclusive of intoxicating liquor and fixtures, a stock of drugs to the value of at least one thousand ($1000) dollars, if such business is located in an incorporated city, or if located elsewhere, to the value of at least five hundred ($500) dollars. Said applicant shall also file with the clerk of the circuit court a bond to the satisfaction of said clerk in the penal sum of one thousand ($1,000) dollars conditioned that he will not sell intoxicating liquor except as provided in this act. Said permit shall be for the period of one year from the date of the issuance thereof and a fee of two and fifty hundredths ($2.50) dollars shall be charged for the same. All such fees collected

« 上一頁繼續 »