Case Name: The Commonwealth v. Smith & Burwell
Court: General Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1844-06
Citations: 1 Gratt. 554
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commonwealth v. Smith & Burwell.
Judges: JUDGES PRESENT. Field, Lomax, Estill, Brown, Smith, Fry, Clopton, Baker, Douglass, Wilson, Gholson, M’ Comas, Scarburg.
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 225–225

Head Matter:
JUDGES PRESENT. Field, Lomax, Estill, Brown, Smith, Fry, Clopton, Baker, Douglass, Wilson, Gholson, M’ Comas, Scarburg.
The Commonwealth v. Smith & Burwell.
June, 1844.
Indictments—Sale of Liquor to Slaves—Allegations. — In an indictment for selling ardent spirits to slaves, it is not necessary to state the names ol the owners of the slaves to whom the liquor was sold.
This was an indictment against Smith & Burwell, as partners, in the superior court of Jefferson, for selling spirits “to slaves, whose names or whose owners’ names *were to the jurors unknown,” without the consent in writing of the masters or mistresses &c. of such slaves. The defendants demurred to the indictment, and stated for cause of demurrer, that the indictment did, not state the names of the slaves, or of the owners of the slaves, to whom the liquor was sold. And the court, with the consent of the defendant, adjourned to the general court the following question:
‘ ‘Is it necessary in the indictment for the offence aforesaid, to set forth the names of the owners of such slaves?”
Indictments—Selling Liquor without License—Name of Purchaser.—It is not necessary in indictments for retailing ardent spirits without license to aver, the name of the person to whom the liquor is sold. State v. Pendergast, 20 W. Va. 672; Hulstead's Case, 5 Leigh 724; Dove’s Case, 2 Va. Cas. 26; State v. Chisnell, 36 W. Va. 659. 15 S. E. Rep. 412. See also, mono-graphic note on “Intoxicating Liquors” appended to Thon v. Com., 31 Gratt. 887, and monographic note on “Indictments, Informations and Presentments” appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674; and foot-note to Com. v. Dove, 2 Va. Cas. 26.
The principal case is cited in this connection in Morganstern v. Com., 27 Gratt. 1022,.and State v. Chisnell, 36 W. Va. 659, 15 S. E. Rep. 412.

Opinion:
SMITH, J.,
delivered the resolution of the court.
The court is of opinion, and doth decide, that it was not necessary, in the indictment in this case, to set forth the names of the owners of the slaves mentioned in said indictment—which is ordered to be certified &c.