Commonwealth v. Hull
Citations
- 65 Pa. Super. 450
- 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 17
Syllabus
<p>Liquor law — Selling liquor without a license — Sale by agent— Brewing company.</p> <p>Where an agent of a brewing company goes into a county in which his employer has no right to sell liquor, and there makes a contract to deliver the goods in the place where the order is taken, and the order is accepted by the principal and executed according to its terms by delivery in the prohibited place, both the principal and his agent are guilty of selling liquor without a license; and in such a case it is immaterial that the defendant did not himself make the delivery, and that he had no personal interest in the liquors involved in' the sale.</p> <p>The making by an agent-of an executory contract for the sale of liquors to be delivered in the future within a prohibited district becomes an indictable offense the moment the contract is consummated by the delivery of the liquor, whether such delivery is made by the agent or his employer.</p> <p>Liquor laws — Sale without license — Interstate commerce.</p> <p>Where a brewing company licensed in Pennsylvania sends beer to a branch establishment in another state, and from this branch delivers beer to customers in a county in Pennsylvania over which its license does not extend, such sale is not protected as interstate commerce, if it appears that it was consummated after the passage of the Act of Congress of March 1, 1913, c. 90, 37 Stat. 699, entitled “An Act divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases.”</p> <p>Liquor laws — Selling liquors without a license — Conviction on defendant’s own testimony — Reasonable doubt.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for selling liquors without a license, it is reversible error for the court to charge that “if you believe the defendant’s own testimony as he gave it on the stand, it will be your duty to convict him,” if it does not appear that the testimony of the defendant, if true, established every fact essential to warrant a conviction.</p> <p>In such a
Judges: Head, Henderson, Kephart, Orlady, Porter, Trexler, Williams
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Commonwealth v. WilliamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1958-01-21· cited 12×
- Commonwealth v. KeppelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1974-09-23· cited 4×
- Commonwealth v. GalloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1919-01-03· cited 1×
- Commonwealth v. JacobsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1919-07-17
- Commonwealth v. BayneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1919-07-17
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Commonwealth v. HolstineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1890-02-17· cited 50×
- Garbracht v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1881-01-03· cited 11×
- Rossi v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1915-06-01· cited 8×
- Star Brewing Company's LicenseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1910-07-20· cited 8×
- Commonwealth v. GuinzburgSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1911-04-17· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.