Case Name: Lemon v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1853-12-31
Citations: 4 Ind. 603
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lemon v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 603–604

Head Matter:
Lemon v. The State.
An information under the liquor act of 1853 which does not allege that the liquor was not sold for sacramental, mechanical, chemical, medicinal or culinary purposes, is bad, on motion to quash.
Information under the liquor act of 1853, for retailing spirituous liquor. The retailing was charged and proved to have taken place on the 4th of June, 1853. The defendant produced a license regularly issued by the auditor, dated November 7,1852, authorizing him to retail spirituous liquor for one year, and proved that at the April electiop, 1852, a majority of the votes in the township for which the license issued, and where the. retailing took place, were cast in favor of granting license. Held, that the license covered the period when the retailing took place, and was valid.
Saturday, December 31.
APPEAL from the Dearborn Court of Common Pleas.
J. Ryman, for the appellant.
E. Dumont, for the state.

Opinion:
Roache, J.
This was an information against Lemon for retailing. The defendant was found guilty and fined.
A motion to quash the information was overruled. This was erroneous. The information was defective for the reason that it did not allege that the liquor was not sold for mechanical, sacramental, chemical, medicinal or culinary purposes. Brutton v. The State, ante, pp. 601, 602.
On the trial the defendant produced a license regularly issued to him by the county auditor, under date of 7th November, 1852, authorizing him to vend and retail spirituous liquors for one year. He also proved that at the April election, 1852, a majority of votes in the township for which the license issued, and in which the retailing took place, were cast in favor of granting license.
The retailing was charged and proved to have taken place on the 4th of June, 1853.
The license covered the period when the act of retailing took place, and was valid. Rust v. The State, ante, p. 528.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.