The Russellville Democrat., 1884-03-06
Supreme Court Decision.
OPINION BIZ ENGLISH, q. ).

OPINION BIZ ENGLISH, G. ).
Blackwell vs.. State--AppeaI from
Yell, Dardanelle district--Indict.
ment for selling whisky 10 viola
tion Of local option law OF 3lst
March, 1881.
The ssssaIant kept q billiard hall
; "a Dardanelle, and was partner in
saloon at Caulksvile. six miles
away therefrom. A witness proved
that he got some whisky at the bill
lizard hall, in Dardanelle, on FRIDAY
before the trial; that be paid the
money. On the day before tue wit
ness asked defendant for whisky, and
be said be could not sell it there, and
refused the money for whisky at
Caulksville but told witness he might
leave the money anywhere. and step
in and give defendants son an order
for the whisky to the saloon at Caulks.
vile, and he could leave the money
with his son, or anywhere where he
could get it. On the Friday before
the trial defendant's little boy called
witness and handed him the whisky.
Defendant was In the billiard hall at
the time. Pendergrass, q witness for
defendant, testified that be went to
CaulksviIle on Thursday, the day be.
fore the whisky was delivered, in de-
fendant's buggy. with an order for the
prosecuting witness. and his money
for the purchase OF quart of whis
ky. and with that order Lc took
others, and brought in the whisky
and left it at defendants hourse. He
was not the agent or cmploye OF de
fcnjant, and only did it for accom-
mediation. The wllisky was bought
at Caulksyiile, at the saloon Of the
defendant, and carried distance OF
six miles from the Dardanelle school
house, the center Of the prohibition
limit. Witness left tthe whisky at de-
fendant's billiard hall in Dardanellc
within the limits. 1t was admitted
that the money was deposited with
the defendants son, and the whisky
received within the prohibition lin
its. The court below instructed the
jury for the state:
s.If the jury find from the evidence
that the order and money for the
whisky were lett with the defend
ants son. and the son was acting us
agent for his father, the defendant,
and that the whisky was delivered
here Che court was setting 10 Oar
danelle) by the son to J. b. Coats
1.-THE prosecuting wituess) J, they will
find the defendant guilty as charged"
The second instruction asked for
defendant, which was refused, was
as follows:
I'll The jury find from the evidence
that the defendant refused 10 take
the money when offered to him in
Dardanelle by the prosecuting Wit
ness, Coats, for a quart OF whisky,
telling him that be could not take
pay for 1t in Dardanclc. but if he
would leave the money in town where
he could get it. he would send it or
take it out to his store, where he could
lawfully sell it to him; and If it sps
pears from the evidence that the
quart Of whisky was bought and paid
for at the. store, where it was lawful
to sell it, the delivery of the same IN
Dardanelle, or elsewhere, within three
miles of the school house, after It's
purchase, was not a sale within the
meaning Of the statute, and they
must acIuit the defendant. The dc
fendant was convicted.
HELD: That the evidence warrant
ed the verdict, and upon the facts
there was 10 error in giving and re-
fusing instructions. The case is like
YoweIi VS.. State, decided at present
term.
Affirmed.