Case Name: Tefft v. Commonwealth
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1837-06
Citations: 8 Leigh 721
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Tefft v. Commonwealth.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 1049–1050

Head Matter:
*Tefft v. Commonwealth.
June, 1837.
Ardent Spirits — Indictment -Record ot Finding — Sufficiency. — The record of the finding of an Indictment for retailing ardent spirits without license, states that the grand ' jury presented an indictment against W. T. for retailing liquors, a true bill: Hei,d. this is sufficient. , . ,
, . , Misdemeanours — Indictment — Sufficiency. — Though the name of the county be left blank in the margin of an indictment for misdemeanour, it is enough if the county be stated in the body of the indictment. . .
. . Ardent Spirits — Retailing without License -indictment — Sufficiency.—The offence of retailing ardent sifirits without license is sufficiently chafged in an indictment alleging that the defendant sold by retail, withont license, whiskey, brandy and other liquors to the jurors unknown, to be drunk at the place where sold.
Writ of error to judgment of the circuit superiour court of law and chancery for Wood county, rendered at September term 1836.
The plaintiff in error was indicted in the county court of Wood, for retailing ardent spirits without license. The record of the finding stated, that “the grand jury presented an indictment against William Tefft for retailing liquors, a true bill.” The caption to the indictment left the name of the county blank, being as follows: “Virginia, -county, to wit: In the county court.” The indictment then proceeded thus — “The jurors for the commonwealth of Virginia, and for the body of the county of Wood, upon their oaths present that William Tefft, late of the county of Wood, on the 24th day of May 1834, unlawfully, and without then having a license therefor according to law, at the store of said William Tefft in the county of Wood, and within the jurisdiction of the county court of said county, did sell by retail whiskey, brandy and other liquors to the jurors unknown, and mixtures thereof, to Isaac Nutter, to be drunk at the said place where sold as aforesaid, contrary to the form of the statute,” &c. On the motion of the defendant, the county court quashed the indictment and discharged him therefrom. The attorney for x'the commonwealth in the county court applied to the circuit court for a writ of error. That court awarded the writ, reversed the judgment of the county court, overruled the motion to quash the indictment, and remanded the cause for farther proceedings. On the petition of Tefft, this court awarded a writ of error to the judgment of the circuit court.
Fisher, for the plaintiff in error,
contended that the indictment was properly quashed by the county court, 1. Because there was no sufficient record of the finding. 2. Because no venue was laid in the margin. 3. Because, under the statute prohibiting and punishing the safe of “wine, rum or brandy, or other ardent spirits,” by retail, it was not enough for the indictment to charge that the defendant sold by retail “whiskey, brandy and other liquors to the jurors unknown.”
Indictment — Record of Finding — Sufficiency.—Off the question of sufficiency of the record of the finding of an indictment by the grand jury, the principal case was cited with approval in Karliart v. Com.. 9 Leigh 671; foot-note to Myers v. Com., 2 Va. Gas. ICO; State v. Chapman, 25 W. Va. 410. See further, monographic note on "Indictments, Informa-tions and Presentments” appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674.
Ardent Spirits — Illegal Sale — Writ of Error for Commonwealth. — See, citing principal case with approval, Com. y. Coe, 0 Leigh 621; Com. v. Scott, 10 Gratt. 754 (seefoot-note to this case); State v. Allen. 8 W. Va. 681 i State v. Kyle, 8 W. Va. 713. See further, monographic note on "Intoxicating Liquors” appended to Thon v. Com., 31 Gratt. 887.

Opinion:
DANIEL, J.,
delivered the resolution of the court, that there is no error in the judgment of the circuit superiour court, and that the same be affirmed.