Blahut v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Blahut v. State

16 S.W. 582, 54 Ark. 538, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 111

DecidedMay 30, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 16 S.W. 582 (Blahut v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blahut v. State, 16 S.W. 582, 54 Ark. 538, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 111 (Ark. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Cockrill, C. J.

tom'no?I¡quor In Hill v. State, 37 Ark., 395, it was ruled that a sale of liquor to a minor, made in pursuance of' the parol consent of the parent, which was afterwards reduced to writing, was punishable under the statute which prohibits a sale to a minor unless made upon written consent. The theory of the decision is that, the offense being against the State, the father has no power to condone it, and cannot deprive the sale of its criminal character except by following the statute—that is, by giving his consent in writing prior to the sale. The legislative intent in requiring this-prerequisite was, doubtless, to insure deliberation on the part of the parent, uninfluenced by the desire to shield or the fear to punish the guilty seller, as well as to secure such evidence of the fact of consent as to end dispute upon that subject. But whatever the reason for requiring it may have been, it is certain that the statute demands a written consent, and the courts can require no less. Tinsley v. Craige, ante, p. 346.

It follows that the oral consent of the parent is not a defense to a prosecution for selling liquor to a minor, although the consent is given in the presence of the minor and the seller at the time the sale is made.

Affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cockrill, C. J.

tom'no?I¡quor In Hill v. State, 37 Ark., 395, it was ruled that a sale of liquor to a minor, made in pursuance of' the parol consent of the parent, which was afterwards reduced to writing, was punishable under the statute which prohibits a sale to a minor unless made upon written consent. The theory of the decision is that, the offense being against the State, the father has no power to condone it, and cannot deprive the sale of its criminal character except by following the statute—that is, by giving his consent in writing prior to the sale. The legislative intent in requiring this-prerequisite was, doubtless, to insure deliberation on the part of the parent, uninfluenced by the desire to shield or the fear to punish the guilty seller, as well as to secure such evidence of the fact of consent as to end dispute upon that subject. But whatever the reason for requiring it may have been, it is certain that the statute demands a written consent, and the courts can require no less. Tinsley v. Craige, ante, p. 346.

It follows that the oral consent of the parent is not a defense to a prosecution for selling liquor to a minor, although the consent is given in the presence of the minor and the seller at the time the sale is made.

Affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.W. 582, 54 Ark. 538, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blahut-v-state-ark-1891.