Schmidt v. State

14 Mo. 137
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1851
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 14 Mo. 137 (Schmidt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Schmidt v. State, 14 Mo. 137 (Mo. 1851).

Opinion

Ryland, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case presents the instructions given below for our adjudication.

The evidence is not saved nor presented to us. We presume the evidence justified the court in giving the instructions : if so, we must believe there was proof that the clerk of the defendant by his directions and' under his control and employment sold the intoxicating or spiritous liquors mentioned in the indictment, and that there was no license to the defendant authorizing him to sell, &c.

We find no fault with the instructions given. The grand jury might indict either the master or the clerk, and having indicted the master, it shall not avail him to say his clerk sold the liquors at his grocery under his control and direction.

If this could avail the employer, he would only have to employ a clerk, irresponsible in a pecuniary point of view, and there he might carry on this demoralizing and pauper-making business without license and in defiance of law.

We think he should suffer for the acts he makes and directs his ser« vant to perform. It is his duty to produce his license ; having failed to do so, let him pay the penalty.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Tom Prince
297 S.W. 34 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1927)
State v. Legendre
96 A. 9 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1915)
Bell v. State
137 S.W. 670 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)
State v. Brown
131 S.W. 760 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Ex Parte Cain
1908 OK 9 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Ex Parte Cain
93 P. 974 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1908)
Early v. State
97 S.W. 82 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1906)
State v. Stephens
70 Mo. App. 554 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
City of St. Louis v. Weitzel
31 S.W. 1045 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
State v. Parsons
27 S.W. 1102 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
State v. Morton
42 Mo. App. 64 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1890)
State v. Wilson
39 Mo. App. 114 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1890)
State v. Dent
25 W. Va. 1 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1884)
State v. McGrath
73 Mo. 181 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1880)
State v. Baker
71 Mo. 475 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1880)
State v. Edwards
60 Mo. 490 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1875)
State v. Perkins
53 N.H. 435 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1873)
State v. Schar
50 Mo. 393 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1872)
State v. Hirsch
45 Mo. 429 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Mo. 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-state-mo-1851.