Commonwealth v. Rossi

Citations

• 42 Pa. Super. 581
• 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 382

Syllabus

<p>Liquor laws — Sale without license — ■Evidence—Question for jury.</p> <p>1. On an indictment for selling liquor without a license the case is for the jury where the evidence for the commonwealth tends to show that the defendant took orders for beer, which he bought himself, and that it was delivered to .his customers by a driver employed by himself; and this is so although the defendant testifies that he was merely acting as an agent for a brewery, and that the driver who delivered the beer was acting independently of himself.</p> <p>2. On the trial of an indictment for selling liquor without a license there .was evidence that the defendant set before a witness two bottles of beer, and when asked how much they were, he said “Nothing,” and that subsequently he set before the same witness two bottles of beer and that the latter laid down ten cents and walked out. There was no evidence of any previous arrangement between the defendant and • the witness that the latter was to get the beer and pay for it. There was also no evidence of any other occurrence of a.similar kind, or that the place where it did occur indicated that a liquor business was carried on in it. Held, that it was reversible error for the court to instruct the jury that they were at liberty to infer that the beer was delivered pursuant to a prior arrangement.</p>