Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1895-07-17
LIQUOR TO MINORS.
Judge Bigelow Renders an I'm
portant Ruling.
THE MURRIN CASE DISMISSED.

The Dtd erence Between Giviu. It Direct
and When 1t Is Merely to the Agent for
Another-Two Decisions in Point in the
Circuit Court
In the circuit court yesterday alter
noon Judge Bigeiow gave his decision
in the case of Edward Murrin, indict
ed for selling liquor to minors. The
ruling was for the acquittal OF the
defendant and it is important, rs i. is
the first instance in Rock Island
county where Judge has defined the
difference between selling liquor to
minors direct and giving it to them
for others. The Schaffer boys in the
instance complained Of were sent TO
Murrin's by Daniel McMaster, an
employc in a bakery block from
there, and The beer was purchased for
McMastcr. This was the point
raised by William McEniry. attorney
for the defense, upon the agreement
as to the state OF facts with States
Attorney Searle. The law under the
dram shop act holds that no one
shall sell OK give Intoxicating liquors
to minors without consent of par
ents. guardians or physician, and the
clause is not less than $40 OF more
than 500.
The Judge Decision
In this case Judge Bigelow held
that to constitute 4 sale or gift Of in
toXicating liquor it is necessary that
the legal title shall pass from ven-
dor to vsndee. But in this case the
agreed state of facts showed that the
SchafIer boys received liquor as agent
of another, and as well settled
principle Of law that the title OF
property could no. pass from vendor
to agent, and the boys receiving the
liquor in the capacity of agents
could not receive the title TO the
| liquor. Hence the sale was not TO
the boys, but to the man who sent
them for the liquor. Hence Murrin
was not liable under the statutes for
selling liquor to minors.
Not Been Decided Before.
This question has not been de-
cided by the supreme court Of this
state, and it was the first time the
question was ever raised in the cir
cult court ot Rock Island county.
The point contended by Mr.. McEniry
that sale OF liquor could not be
made to an agent has been sustained
by three decisions of the supreme
court of Massachusetts under u stat
ute similar to that in this state,
which decisions were followed by
Judge Bigelow.
| Martin Found Guilty.
In the afternoon Jack Martin was
found guilty OF one count for selling
| liquor to a minor in the person of
james Shannon. by the following
Jurors: l.. X. Sykes. William Rice.
+. B. Kuschmann, S. G. Bligh. George
McGee, William Kirby, f. G. Alex
ander, Frank Babcock. +. c. Wake
field. John Shelly, w. ii. McCartv
and A. b. Cox. The fine was placed
at S25 and costs.
MIR. McEnirv, for the defendant.
did not deny his guilt in selling in
toxicants to the boy. who repre-
scented that the goods were de-
sir ed for other parties, whereas tt e
lad used the liquor himself and be-
came drunk. The court contenGed
that Mr.. Martin was guilty in so far
as he was responsible for the conse-
quence of the intoxicants while in
the minors possession. and until they
were delivered over to the purchas-
ing party. States Attorney Searle
prosecuted. assisted by NJ. f.
Swecny, employed by the W. c. r. U.
The case was given to the jury at
o'clock. and after q few hours DELHI
Grafton returned verdict. findiue
Mr.. Martin guilty on one count,
three charges being held against him.