New Britain herald., 1923-10-13
SCHMARR'S CASEIS
 TAKEN ID SUPERIOR
Continued from First page)

l
 the Court realized that the matter wa, i one or great importance 10 the de. | iehdant as the records Of this cour,
 snow that the defendant has twice
 been convicted in this court Of ylo.
 latlon of the liquor law. once on May .bth, 1921, and once on December
 18th, 1922, and the Court wished to
 give due consideration to the claims of defendants counsel raised upon the
 trial the controlling one being that
 the defendant could not be held re-
 sponsible for the criminal act of his Iagent.
 Tn the case of State V. Curtiss, 60 Conn, s6.' the Court approved the
 rule that criminal responsibility on
 the part of the principal for the act
 of his agent or servant in the course
 of his employment. implies some de-
 gree of moral guilt or delinquency,
 manifested either by direct partici-
 patton in or assent to the act or by
 want of proper care and oversight. or through negligence in reference to the business which he has thus entrusted to another
 Testimony on behalf of the state is, that officers visited the cafe and restaurant situated at PAS East Main street on September 29th, 1923. and upon their entering the place one Joseph Lang, an employe of the de- fendant, made dash for the sink and emptied liquid therein. The officers reached the sink about the same time and succeeded in securing a portion of the liquid. which was analysed by chemist and found to contain over the amount of alcohol by law The state also proved that liquor had been pur- chased in the said cafe or restaurant on different occasions from both the defendant and Lang, and also that the police had received complaint of sales being made at the came.
 An indictment or complaint al- Ieging an unlawful sale of liquor by defendant is supported by proof that he sold it by his clerk, servant or agent. but in this case it is necessary to identify the seller as the agent or smploye of defendant, or at least to adduce evidence from which the jury nay infer such connection between hem, and further, it must be shown hat the sale was made in the presence I of the principal or with his knowledge md assent, or by his direction or au- hority, but such knowledge, consent and authority, if not directly proven nay be made out by inference from circumstances to induce the belief that defendant directed or assented to the tets of the servant or agent De- endant may show in his defense that | he sale in question was made with ut his knowledge and in disobedience o his positive orders to his servant IT agent to make no such sales as hat complained of.'-23 CYC, Page 57.
 From the evidence in this case, in few of the actions of the person in harge of the case at the time, Lang, n his haste to destroy evidence; in jew of the complaint received by the office that liquor was being sold in he cafe; in view of the fact that a glass was found by the ficers, and in view of the fact that he defendant did not deny the cm- loyment of Lang or his authority to onduct the business of the accused uring his absence, or that the liquor ound on his premises was his. the ourt is inclined to the belief that the Schmarr, Is guilty as charged n the count of owning and keeping -ith intent to sell and exchange