Godfrey v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Godfrey v. State

5 Blackf. 151, 1839 Ind. LEXIS 58

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 29, 1839

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 5 Blackf. 151 (Godfrey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Godfrey v. State, 5 Blackf. 151, 1839 Ind. LEXIS 58 (Ind. 1839).

Pincite

Opinion

Blackford, J.

Indictment. The charge is, that the defendant, at, &c., on the first of January, 1837, not having a license or permit to vend spirituous liquors by retail, — sold a half pint of whiskey to Jesse Cartwright for the sum of six cents, and which was not sold to the sick, &c.' Plea, not guilty. The evidence adduced on the trial was as follows: — ■ A license to keep a grocery for one year, at, &c., was obtained by one Hart on the fifth of September, 1836, who gave bond, &c.' About the 25th of December, 1836, Hart sold his interest in the grocery to the defendant, agreeing that the defendant might sell under the said license, and that he, Hart, would be responsible on his said bond for the good order of the house. The defendant sold the whiskey at the time and [152]*152place mentioned in the indictment. The cause was submitted to the Circuit Court, and a judgment rendered against the defendant.

J. Perry, for the plaintiff. W. Quarles, for the state.

There is no error in this judgment. The license to Hart was not assignable; and the defendant had no authority, under the circumstances, to sell the whiskey charged in the indictment.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

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

Blackford, J.

Indictment. The charge is, that the defendant, at, &c., on the first of January, 1837, not having a license or permit to vend spirituous liquors by retail, — sold a half pint of whiskey to Jesse Cartwright for the sum of six cents, and which was not sold to the sick, &c.' Plea, not guilty. The evidence adduced on the trial was as follows: — ■ A license to keep a grocery for one year, at, &c., was obtained by one Hart on the fifth of September, 1836, who gave bond, &c.' About the 25th of December, 1836, Hart sold his interest in the grocery to the defendant, agreeing that the defendant might sell under the said license, and that he, Hart, would be responsible on his said bond for the good order of the house. The defendant sold the whiskey at the time and [152]*152place mentioned in the indictment. The cause was submitted to the Circuit Court, and a judgment rendered against the defendant.

J. Perry, for the plaintiff. W. Quarles, for the state.

There is no error in this judgment. The license to Hart was not assignable; and the defendant had no authority, under the circumstances, to sell the whiskey charged in the indictment.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Blackf. 151, 1839 Ind. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godfrey-v-state-ind-1839.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack