Case Name: The People v. Robert Riley
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1888-07-11
Citations: 71 Mich. 349
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People v. Robert Riley.
Judges: The- other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 349–350

Head Matter:
The People v. Robert Riley.
Liquor traffic — Sale to minor — Charge to jury.
Where in a prosecution for 'selling liquor to a minor the undisputed and only evidence showed such sale in the respondent’s presence, and in such a manner as to make his ignorance of it impossible, unless he lacked some of his senses, or was willfully ignorant, an instruction to the jury that such ignorance would make no difference, and that he would be liable at all events, could have no bearing or effect, there being no pretense of such ignorance.
Exceptions from Berrien. (O’Hara, J.)
Argued June 27, 1888.
Decided July 11, 1888.
Respondent was convicted of selling liquor to a minor.
Conviction affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
G. B. é A. II. Potter, for respondent.
Moses Taggart, Attorney General, and George W. Bridgman, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Opinion:
Campbell, J.
Respondent was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor to Sidney Phillips, a minor. The only testimony on either side bearing upon the merits was that of Phillips, who swore he was 17 years old, and that he drank and gambled in Riley's saloon, when Riley was present, and that liquor was served him by the barkeeper.
Hpon this undisputed testimony, which the jury believed and had no reason for disbelieving, the only two issues of fact were whether it was Riley's saloon, and -whether the liquor was sold in the manner witness said it was.
But counsel propounded, and the judge considered, a possible ignorance of Riley concerning the sale of the liquor. The court charged that such ignorance would make no difference, and that he would be liable at all events.
This might make it necessary to consider the correctness of the charge upon the hypothesis of actual ignorance and moral innocence. But we do not think that question is before us for decision.
The only testimony concerning any sale showed it was in Riley's presence, and that it was impossible he did not know it, unless he lacked some of his senses, or was willfully ignorant. If the jury believed Phillips concerning the sale, they could not disregard the details of it. It would be difficult to find a plainer case of undisputed facts. If it had been possible for the jury to have been misled by the range of discussion in the charge, it might be material; but all that part of it which referred to what might hold an ignorant party could have no bearing or effect where there was no pretense of ignorance. The testimony pointed all in one way.
The conviction was proper, and should be affirmed.
The- other Justices concurred.