State v. Brown

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Brown

67 S.W. 711, 93 Mo. App. 543, 1902 Mo. App. LEXIS 401

DecidedApril 7, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 67 S.W. 711 (State v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brown, 67 S.W. 711, 93 Mo. App. 543, 1902 Mo. App. LEXIS 401 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, P. J.

The defendant was indicted, prosecuted and convicted for a violation of section 3890, Revised Statutes 1889.

It appears from the evidence introduced at the trial that one Wilson Lierly was the owner and proprietor of a small store in which were kept for sale groceries, hardware and whiskey, and that the defendant was employed by said Lierly as clerk therein and had the sole charge of the business carried on at said store. It further appears that the defendant made the sale of alcoholic liquors mentioned in the in[544]*544dicto ent, and that neither he nor his employee, Lierly, had taken the oath or given the bond required by said section 3890, Revised Statutes 1889. The defendant endeavored to* escape liability by showing that in making the sale he acted as the clerk or agent of the said Lierly, but made no effort to-show that the said Lierly had complied with the requirements of the statute just referred to. It was shown that neither he nor his said employer had complied with the requirements of said statute.

It is well settled in this State that where one makes a sale m the capacity of agent or employee of another, he must show that his principal had complied with the law, for otherwise he is liable whether or not he is the agent or employee of the other. State v. O’Connor, 65 Mo. App. 324; State v. Keith, 46 Mo. App. 525; Hays v. State, 13 Mo. 246.

No prejudicial error is perceived in the action of the court in the giving or refusing instructions.

The defendant was rightly convicted, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.

All concur.

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

SMITH, P. J.

The defendant was indicted, prosecuted and convicted for a violation of section 3890, Revised Statutes 1889.

It appears from the evidence introduced at the trial that one Wilson Lierly was the owner and proprietor of a small store in which were kept for sale groceries, hardware and whiskey, and that the defendant was employed by said Lierly as clerk therein and had the sole charge of the business carried on at said store. It further appears that the defendant made the sale of alcoholic liquors mentioned in the in[544]*544dicto ent, and that neither he nor his employee, Lierly, had taken the oath or given the bond required by said section 3890, Revised Statutes 1889. The defendant endeavored to* escape liability by showing that in making the sale he acted as the clerk or agent of the said Lierly, but made no effort to-show that the said Lierly had complied with the requirements of the statute just referred to. It was shown that neither he nor his said employer had complied with the requirements of said statute.

It is well settled in this State that where one makes a sale m the capacity of agent or employee of another, he must show that his principal had complied with the law, for otherwise he is liable whether or not he is the agent or employee of the other. State v. O’Connor, 65 Mo. App. 324; State v. Keith, 46 Mo. App. 525; Hays v. State, 13 Mo. 246.

No prejudicial error is perceived in the action of the court in the giving or refusing instructions.

The defendant was rightly convicted, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.W. 711, 93 Mo. App. 543, 1902 Mo. App. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-moctapp-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack