State v. Weber

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Weber

20 S.W. 33, 111 Mo. 204, 1892 Mo. LEXIS 139

DecidedJuly 1, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 20 S.W. 33 (State v. Weber) 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

State v. Weber, 20 S.W. 33, 111 Mo. 204, 1892 Mo. LEXIS 139 (Mo. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Gantt, P. J.

The defendants, as dramshop keepers, were indicted by the grand jury in Saline ■county, for selling liquor to a minor.

On the trial, the evidence all tended to prove that the sale was made by a clerk in the absence of the defendants. The defendants offered to prove by themselves and the said clerk that they had, in good faith, forbidden said clerk to sell liquor to any minor, without the written- consent of his parent, master or guardian, and that said sale was without their knowledge, and in positive violation of their orders. The criminal court rejected the evidence, and held that they were conclusively bound by the act of their bar-keeper.

In this the court erred, and for the reasons given by us in State v. McCance, 110 Mo. 398, the cause is reversed and remanded for new trial.

As the case must be retried, it is proper to say that the record of the forfeiture of the recognizance of the state’s witness was utterly irrelevant, and should not have been admitted. On what theory this evidence was admitted we are at a loss to conjecture. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.

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

Gantt, P. J.

The defendants, as dramshop keepers, were indicted by the grand jury in Saline ■county, for selling liquor to a minor.

On the trial, the evidence all tended to prove that the sale was made by a clerk in the absence of the defendants. The defendants offered to prove by themselves and the said clerk that they had, in good faith, forbidden said clerk to sell liquor to any minor, without the written- consent of his parent, master or guardian, and that said sale was without their knowledge, and in positive violation of their orders. The criminal court rejected the evidence, and held that they were conclusively bound by the act of their bar-keeper.

In this the court erred, and for the reasons given by us in State v. McCance, 110 Mo. 398, the cause is reversed and remanded for new trial.

As the case must be retried, it is proper to say that the record of the forfeiture of the recognizance of the state’s witness was utterly irrelevant, and should not have been admitted. On what theory this evidence was admitted we are at a loss to conjecture. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 S.W. 33, 111 Mo. 204, 1892 Mo. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-weber-mo-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack