Commonwealth v. Gill

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Commonwealth v. Gill

2 Ky. Op. 136, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 437

DecidedDecember 5, 1867

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ky. Op. 136 (Commonwealth v. Gill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Gill, 2 Ky. Op. 136, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 437 (Ky. Ct. App. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Robertson .

E. M. Garriot having obtained a license to keep a tavern, which authorized him to retail spirituous liquors and not choosing to exercise that privilege himself, gave it to the appellee John Gill, who, for retailing under that license, was indicted for keeping a tippling house.

Attorney General, for appellant.

He pleaded tbe authority thus granted to him by Garriot under his license. And, on that issue, which the circuit court adjudged upon rendered judgment in his favor.

As the retailing was in a room covered by Garriot’s license, it seems to this court that the judgment is right. Although Garriot testified that he had no interest in the profits and charged nothing for the privilege granted to the' appellee, yet being, as he was, responsible on his bond for the conduct of the appellee as his gratuitous agent, the latter did not retail without lawful license and was therefore not fineable for the mere act of selling liquors by retail, nor was thereby guilty of keeping a tippling house. And this was substantially so adjudged by this court in the late unreported case of the Commonwealth vs. Neal.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

(See Vol. 1, Ky. Opin., 79.)

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

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Robertson .

E. M. Garriot having obtained a license to keep a tavern, which authorized him to retail spirituous liquors and not choosing to exercise that privilege himself, gave it to the appellee John Gill, who, for retailing under that license, was indicted for keeping a tippling house.

Attorney General, for appellant.

He pleaded tbe authority thus granted to him by Garriot under his license. And, on that issue, which the circuit court adjudged upon rendered judgment in his favor.

As the retailing was in a room covered by Garriot’s license, it seems to this court that the judgment is right. Although Garriot testified that he had no interest in the profits and charged nothing for the privilege granted to the' appellee, yet being, as he was, responsible on his bond for the conduct of the appellee as his gratuitous agent, the latter did not retail without lawful license and was therefore not fineable for the mere act of selling liquors by retail, nor was thereby guilty of keeping a tippling house. And this was substantially so adjudged by this court in the late unreported case of the Commonwealth vs. Neal.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

(See Vol. 1, Ky. Opin., 79.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ky. Op. 136, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-gill-kyctapp-1867.