#### The State *v.*Samuel T. Munson.

1. All who aid or participate in the commission of a misdemeanor are principals.

2. The supplying of intoxicating liquor to a minor to be drank by him, is a-*382furnishing of the liquor to the minor, within the meaning of the act of April 5,1866, although it may have been purchased by another and supplied by the seller to the minor in pursuance of such purchase.

On bill of exceptions taken by the prosecuting attorney to the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas of Lorain ■county.

The defendant was indicted for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. The errors alleged relate to the first-count of the indictment. In that count the defendant was charged with furnishing to John Johnston, a minor, intoxicating liquors, contrary to the act of April 5, 1866. S. & ■S. 748.

On the trial, it appeared, from the testimony, that Johnston was a minor, and that defendant knew it. Also, that Johnston and two others, Bishop and McCoy, appeared .at the counter of the defendant’s saloon; that McCoy called for three glasses of intoxicating liquors, which the defendant drew and set out upon the counter, each of the three persons taking and drinking a glass of the liquor so set out, which was paid for by McCoy. In its charge, the court instructed the jury, if they found from the evidence, *“*that either Bishop or McCoy stepped up to the counter and called for and bought three glasses of intoxicating liquor ■of the defendant, which three glasses were then and there •drank by Bishop, McCoy, and Johnston, and the same was paid for by Bishop or McCoy, such sale to Bishop or McCoy would not be a furnishing to Johnston, within the meaning of the statute, although said defendant knew that he was .a minor, and that one of said glasses of liquor was to be then and there drank by him.”

This instruction was duly excepted to. Exceptions were •also taken to the ruling of court in excluding evidence, which it is unnecessary to notice, as the same question .arises on the charge,

*G. W. Johnson,*for the state:

White, J.

This case comes before us on a bill of excep*383tions, which has been allowed to be filed, in pursuance of «eetion 158 of the code of criminal procedure.

The question in the case arises oh the, construction of section 1, of the act of April 5,1866, supplementary to the act to provide against the evils resulting from the sale of intoxicating liquors.

The act provides as follows: “ That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, ... to buy for or furnish to any minor, to be drank by such minor, any intoxicating liquors whatsoever, unless given by a physician, in thé regular line of his practice.”

The rule at common law is, that in offenses less than felony, all who aid, advise, or procure the commission of an offense, though absent at the time of its commission, are principals; but in all classes of offenses, those who are present at their commission, giving aid and assistance, are alike principals. This principle is applicable here. The gist of the offense consisted in furnishing the liquor to Johnston, to be drank by him, knowing him to be a minor. The defendant was the only one present, who had liquor to furnish, and he supplied it with the understanding that one glass of it was to be drank by Johnston. The liquor passed directly from the defendant to Johnston. True, it was supplied by the defendant at the instance of McCoy, who was to pay for it; but the unlawfulness of the act is not affected by that fact. Whether it was to be paid for, or not, was, under the statute, immaterial. If the liquor was. supplied by the defendant to Johnston, to be drank by him, knowing him to he a minor, the offense was complete; and it would be no defense that the defendant, acted at the instance or under the employment of another.

We think the court erred, and that the exceptions were well taken.

McIlvaine, C. J,, Welch, Rex, and Gilmore, JJ., com eurred.