The Opelousas courier., 1903-01-10
JUDGMENT.
State of Louisiana vs.. Samuel Haas.
The facts in this case are substantial

lilo tONn VI OpClUu5dN.
That he has the United States revenue
license for the sale of liquors, but no Ii
| cense from the parish.
That he was requested by the resident
physician to keep some liquor for med
icinal purposes,and being informed that
a United States revenue license was ne
cessary for that purpose, he obtained 1t
nOrthat purpose.
That he is iD the habit of keeping
sRiSd0us liquor in his store and at his
house for his individual purposes, but
does not sell it, nor authorize any OF his
employees to sell it, but fOrbids them
from doing so.
That there is no evidence going to
show that he has ever sold it, or that he
either directly or indirectly authorized
his employees to do so.
That be ordinarily keeps whisky lock
ed in his store safe, and that there are
two keys to this safe, one kept by him
self and one by Willis Wolff, his conf
Dental clerk.
That all of his clerks who testified say
| they were forbidden to sell whisky.
That the defendant frequently gave
| whisky to his friends for medicinal and
| social purposes, but never disposed OF
| it for d price in money or other valuable
consideration.
On the other hand, it is shown that
whisky was sold to several parties at
his store recently.
His confidential clerk, Wolff, is shown
to have sold a flask of whisky on Sun
| day for money, and that Erich, another
| of his clerks, quite often sold whisky.
1t was shown that he kept whisky him
| self, and. in selling, it is not shown
| whether he sold his or defendants. He
testiiies that defendant forbids him
from selling his, defendants, whisky.
The defendant was no present at any
| of these sales, and testified that lie knew
| nothing of said sales until after this
prosecution originated.
Conway, y Of the witnesses VINO CO.
! tanned ii bottle Of defendants whisky
from Wolff, leaving 75c on the counter
to pay for same, says that Wolff told
him that he was not allowed 10 sell il,
ant! that he would be discharged ii de
fendant found 1t out.
The evidence fails To show thai the
| defendant was either cogniZant of or
authorized, either directly OF indirectly,
any OF these sales, and only one other
| sails Of liquor is shown wherein the de-
PENDANT might be presumed to have
c~ountenanced its sale.
1t is tho sale of IL bottle Of Z. 0. ID.
whisky to the witness DeshUtels. He
met defendant il his store and asked
him to lend or give him q bottle OF
whisky, to which defendant replied he
had none, and referred him to Erich,
saying, maybe he might get it from
him. Immediately after which defen-
dant left the store and the witness went
to Erich and obtained from him a bot
tie of C. O. ID. whisky, for which he
paid 75c. This whisky belonged to de-
PENDANT, who was not present when it
was sold and delivered, and as to whom
it is not shown that he had any knowl-
had no such knowledge, and to say that
he bad would in effect be to say that he
swore falsely, and that his clerks had
trifled with tho court in testifying that
they were forbidden to sell it.
While, as a general rule, it is reason
able to presume that "a clerk is author.
lied to soil any article of merchandise
in the line OF his employers business
such u presumption could not just
Nv arise as to articles not in such line oil
business, and as to which the clerk il
forbidden to sell and the employer for,
hidden by law to deal.
In such a case the employers author
ity or knowledge and consent slloulG
be- clearly shown to hold him liable fol
his agents acts. His knowledge OF thu
fact of such sale would render him lia
BILE, il such knowledge came to him a
the time of the sale and he did nothing
to arrest it. upon the principle OF qua
facit per ALA Jacit per se,' and his con
sent would be presumed; but in thu
absence of such proof it should not b,
presumed that he assented to a viola
49,. .c tn,,, hv biu cno pInvaas-
It is true that the facts sworn TO Civ
rise to the suspicion that defendant
whisky could not have been so fire.
dnentiy sold by his clerks and he b
Ignorant OF such facts, but suspicion j
not prooF-and the evidence is not suf
iciently weighty to warrant the cour
in saying that there is no REASONABLE
doubt of the guilt Of the accused. I'll
cannot be legally con victed otherwise
The Court rs not satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt, that the defendan
either participated, or authorized, O
consented to the sale of liquorin hi
, store, and therefore, be cannot be pun
!, ished criminally for such acts by hi
agents or servants.
Counsel for defendant quotes the la
correctly as follows: Principal, to b
punished criminally for the acts of b
. 1 a2GAb- 0E EoEfdbbf a8ACObA
participated in the act, or have give
!. sucll an assent and concurrence theIet
/ as would involve him, morally in til
! guilt of the act.n 43 American Decis
) ions, 2. 432.
The contention is made that the dl
I PENDANT as agent of the seller, procure
; orders for liquor to be delivered an
sold at his place Of business and tina
r this constituted a sale and delivery {
+ whisky in violation of law. So it w0ul
: be If such were q fact. No evidence
offered showing d~efendantto have bee
the agent of the seller. True defend
ant kept @ whisky account with q n
! taller of liquors ia Opelousas fro
whom he purchased liquors for I'll
accommodation OF sundry persons fro
whom he had been given an order t,
each purchase. 1t can be readily III
dersto0d that where three or four,
y more persons give an order to q pc
z son, especially a merchant, to buy +,
them q certain quantity of liquor fl
each, it would be quite natural to maxi
Q an entry of such an order IN bis bool
and keep an account of such transa,
tons, but this does not constitute SUE
q person an agent OF q seller. Besidi
this. the defendant t~estifles be new
purchased liquor except upon order
that lie did this without compensatio
and merely as an accommodation to Il
purchaser and for him.
There is no proof to the contrary, al
nothing to show with any degree
certainty. that defendant was the ago
!? of the seller.
g AS stated by McCiaiD In his work {