Case Name: The State, Respondent, v. Gregory, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1858-07
Citations: 27 Mo. 231
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State, Respondent, v. Gregory, Appellant.
Judges: the other judges concurring.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
The State, Respondent, v. Gregory, Appellant.
1. An indictment, founded on section 1 of the act regulating dram-shops, charging that the defendant, on, &e., at, &c., sold intoxicating liquors, to-wit, one quart of whisky, “ without having any license for that purpose continuing in force during all that time authorizing him so to do,” &c., is sufficient; it sufficiently negatives any legal authority on the part of defendant to sell intoxicating liquors.
Appeal from Laclede Circuit Court.
Wood, for appellant.
I. The court erred in overruling the motions to quash and in arrest. (State v. Brown, 8 Mo. 210 ; Neals v. State, 10 Mo. 499; State v. Black, 9 Mo. 681.) The indictment must negative every license specifically authorizing the sale of intoxicating liquors; (State v. Haden, 15 Mo. 447;) also every other legal authority for selling. (24 Mo. 363 ; State v. Sutton, 25 Mo. 300; see also 1 R. C. 1855, p. 685.)
Ewing, (attorney general,) for respondent.
I. The indictment was good.

Opinion:
Richardson, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant was indicted under the first section of the act concerning dram-shops, which declares that " no person shall directly or indirectly sell intoxicating liquors in any quantity less than one gallon without taking out a license as a dram-shop keeper. (R. C. 1855, p. 683.) The indictment charges that the defendant, on the 1st of August, 1857, at Laclede county, sold intoxicating liquors, to-wit, one quart of whisky " without having, any license for that purpose continuing in force during all that time authorizing him so to do," &c. It was objected, in the motions to quash and in arrest, that the indictment did not sufficiently deny any legal authority to the defendant to sell intoxicating liquors; but we think the right to sell is sufficiently nega tived by the averment that the defendant did not have any license for that purpose. The 18th section of the dram-shop law contains an exception to the general prohibition, and permits intoxicating liquors to be sold in any quantity not less than a quart at the place where made, provided that the maker or seller does not permit the same to be drank at the place of sale. The exception is by way of proviso, and need not be noticed in the indictment, but must be insisted on as a defence. (Tracy & Wakrendorff v. State, 3 Mo. 1.) The judgment will be affirmed;
the other judges concurring.