Case Name: Lane v. The State
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1881-11
Citations: 37 Ark. 272
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lane v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
Lane v. The State.
1. Liquor : License.
One who has license to sell liquor may lawfully sell the liquor of ¡mother who has no license.
APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court.
Hon. W. D. Jaco way, Circuit Judge.
STATEMENT.
J. A. Lane was indicted in the Franklin Circuit Court for being “unlawfully interested in the sale, to one R. A. Eichenberger, of one pint of whisky, the same being, in quan tity, less than one quart of whisky, when the owner thereof had not previously thereto procured a license from the County Court of saidEranklin county authorizing the same, against the peace,” etc.
He demurred to the indictment; the demurrer- was overruled, and he was tried, found guilty, and fined $200. He filed a motion for a new trial, and also in arrest of judgment, for insufficiency of the indictment. Both motions were overruled, and he filed his bill of exceptions, and appealed.
O. B. Moore, Attorney-General, for the State:
The indictment is drawn in the language of the Statute, and the case differs from State v. Keith, 36 Arh., 153, in its charge that appellant was “interested in the sale,” etc., etc.
The proof shows that he was a partner, and that he sold, etc., and “if the seller has no license, and the owner or person interested in the sale none, all may be liable.” State v. Keith, 36 Arh., 153.

Opinion:
Hapjiison, J.
In this case the defendant is charged in the indictment with having been interested in the sale of the liquor ; and in that particular only, differs from the case of The State v. Keith, ante, in which we held the indictment bad, because it was not alleged that the defendant himself had no license, and that it is not a violation of law for one having a license, to sell the liquor of another who has none.
The demurrer to the indictment should have been sustained. •
It is unnecessary to consider the questions raised by the motion for a new trial.
The judgment is reversed.