Case ID: ala_130/html/0121-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TYSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maples v. The State.
    
      Indictment for Selling Spirituous, Vinous or Malt Liquors oontrary to Law. ....
    1. Selling of liquor; what not a violation of law against selling liquor. — Under an indictment ior selling spirituous or vinous liquors without a license and contrary to law, a conviction can not be had against a defendant where the evidence shows that he had no interest in the liquor sold nor in the money paid for it, but acted only as the agent or friend of the purchaser in procuring the liquor.
    Aiteal from the Circuit Court of Jackson.
    Tric'd before the Hon. A. H. Alston.
    The indictment under which the appellant in this case was tried -and 'convicted was as follaws: “The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment, Alfred Maples sold, bartered or exchanged spirituous, vinous or malt liquors without a license, and contrary to law, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.’’ The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
    Tate & Walker, for appellant,
    cited Young v. The State, 58 Ala. 358; Campbell r. State, 79 Ala. 271; Mon/an r. State, 81 Ala. 72; Dullois v. Stale, 87 Ala. 102.
    Cuas. G. Brown, Attorney-General, for the State,
    cited Black on Intoxicating Liquors, § 380; (Himore v. Slate, 120 Ala. 1; Cagle ¿ State, 87 Ala. 38; Walton r. State, 02 Ala. 197; Pasehall v. State, 84 Ga. 320; Slate v. Munson, 25 Ohio St. 381.
   TYSON, J.

The indictment, charged a sale of the Avhiskey by defendant. The evidence upon the trial was, that, one Allison asked defendant, it he thought he could get him some whiskey, and upon receiving an affirmative reply, gave defendant fifty cents, who went away, returning in a short time with one pint of whiskey, which he delivered to Allison without reward for his services. On this proof, the court gave the affirma-tivte charge with hypothesis for the State. In this there was error. The evidence failed to disclose a sale. Young v. State, 58 Ala. 358; Campbell v. State, 79 Ala. 271; Morgan v. State, 81 Ala. 72; DuBois v. State, 87 Ala. 101; Bonds v. State, ante, p. 117.

Reversed and remanded.

Justice Haralson’s views are expressed in the case of Bonds v. State, supra.

Sharpe, J., holds that the question of defendant’s guilt or innocence is for the jury.