The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1873-07-19


Judge Test delivered the following |
opinion n4he case Of The State VI. |
Anson: ~. Hanson, proprietor Of |
the Maison Doree, upon > charge Of |
selling iqSor TO- : minor, which has |
been under' advisement for several
weeks The aopinion > given infull
= ons Of sssak pubic interest," e. |
tablishing aiprecedspt toe The dis
position Of numerous other eases
under thernev'law: The defendant
has made : motion fer q new trial
State pf Indiana W eAnsonC w. !!
II III case il i aarrses 81 tAss Fd.
ward Covsl; on the 7th Of june,
167a was . m6nof Gunder the age
Of twenty.ons yeara That ON that
day, ct the county Of Marion, in the
city Of Indianapolis, be. went into
the saloon of defendant where
liquors were sold, with two other
psrsonS wAo we're adults, and re-
quested Of ! dsfendants bartender
and agent IN the absence Of defend.
ant to furnish him . segar and fur.
nish the two other persons with
whisky. That the segar and whisky
were furnished as requested by said
Coval, and that the two persons
with Conf drank the whisky 20
furnished; but that Covzl did not
drink any portion Of the whisky 20
called for, nor any other intoxieat-
ing liquor; but paid the defendants
bartender for the segsr which Cgval
smoked; and also paid for the
vhiaky 70 drank BY Che .two other
persons who entered NJ rsal6on
with him. The question 8pg the
deciion Of rhe- court Is whekhAr the,
defendant il guilty Of violating the
sixth section Of the act of 27th Of
February, 1873, regulating tho sale
Of Intoxicating Liquors., &c. se
The section referred to reads o.
follows: at ahall be unlawful for
any person, by himself o. agent to
sell, barter, or give intoxicating
liquor to any minor, or person in.
toxicated, or to any person who is
in the habit Of getting intoxicated"
There are two questions involved
In this case: First. II tho defend.
ant liable for the acts Of Lis agent,
the defendant being absent e tho
time. Second II Il R,4h q sale
to . minor - makes the defendant
liable as contemplated by the pro
Visions Of the law. 4ss
As to the;frst question this court
has uniformly held undsr the late
act that where liquor was sold to a
minor by the agent Of one whose
business was the sale Of liquor the
principal W. kahde for such tale,
nor 10 u simpeutsnt 70 inquire
whether the principal WAS present
or not. There was no necessity of
inserting the words stby himself or
agent" "a the act If it was intended
only to make the principal liable
when he WAS present Under any
law in such cases it present would
be deemed his own act. Nor is
this opinion In conflict with the de-
cisions Of the Supreme Court IN the
case Of Hipp W The 6ta3e rs Black.
1897, nor .sWekxler vi Tho Gfnte
rs Ind 85.l Those deciEions were
founded on stGtutes widely different
from the present law. Neither of
them provided for the sale Of liquor
by the agent - il provided for in
the late act Of the Legiahture. The
present II . new feature IN our leg
islation, and the Legislature clear
" intends IS hold the kquor dealer
In the cases specified II the sixth
section liable tnr the acts Of his
agent whether Present or not and
this opinion b strengt hened BY the
provisions of the eleventh section
Of the same act which provides that
''The bartering or giving away. Of
intoxicating liquors, or other shift
or device to evade the provisions Of
this act by any person or persons
keeping liquor for sale, or BY his
!, agent or enaploye, at, the place
where the same are kept for sale,
shah be deemed and held TO be an
unlawful selling, or giving away 70,
the purpose of this act" oG
No man IL bound to engage in
the liquor traffic, and If he does do
20, he does it with his eyes open as
TO the law on the subject. Nor dc
We see any reason why we should
declare the late enactment in con-
Aict with the constitution. There
has never been . day in the histor,
Of the State in which some re-
straints have not been thrown
around the traffic in liquors, and il
. some instances declaring the places
where they were sold as nrlisances
The Supreme Court has almost in
variably sustained convictions fol
the violations Of such restrictive
laws. Now, a. . court, we hav'
nothing TO do with the question
whether the law is expedient o
impoItic.-that lies between tn
people and those to whom the.
delegate the temporary power Q
making laws. If the enactment j
not . reflex Of public sentiment
neither the responsibility or tn
remedy lies With the courts. 4 pre-
2l6.
And why have these restraint
been thrown around the traAlc i
Nquori Itis undoubtedly upon th
Ground that drunkenness il an evi
and that the vending Of intoxicat
ine drinks leads to intemperance-
that it is not only an individual bu
--LVs~ oS$0 xn~rt4v.nssR<p Ss~no - An