Pennybaker v. State

2 Blackf. 484, 1831 Ind. LEXIS 27
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 24, 1831·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

M‘Kinney, J.

This was an indictment for retailing spirituous liquors without a licence. Plea, not guilty; and, by consent, the cause was submitted to the Court without the intervention of a jury. The defendant was found guilty, and judgment rendered against him'. A bill of exceptions, taken to the opinion of the Court overruling a motion for a new trial, furnishes the evidence upon which the judgment of the Court was founded.

A single question is presented for our consideration. Can the judgment be sustained on evidence that the whisky, charged in the indictment to have been sold by the defendant, was sold by his wife, he being absent from his house, and no authority proved to have been given? We.think the evidence insufficient to establish the liability of the defendant. The presumption of agency is inadmissible. The wife, committing offenceswithout the presence or coercion of her husband, is regarded as a feme sole. She is alone responsible. 1 Russell on Crimes, 25.—1 Chitty’s Bl. 348 and note 51.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed. To he certified, &c.

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

Pennybaker v. State, 2 Blackf. 484, 1831 Ind. LEXIS 27 (Ind. 1831).

2 Blackf. 484 (Pennybaker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Caldwell v. State
137 N.E. 179 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1922)
Boos v. State
105 N.E. 117 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1914)
Walters v. State
92 N.E. 537 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
Rosenbaum v. State
57 N.E. 156 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1900)
Hanson v. State
43 Ind. 550 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1873)
Lauer v. State
24 Ind. 131 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1865)
Hipp v. State
5 Blackf. 149 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1839)