State v. McCormick
Citations
- 56 Wash. 469
- 105 P. 1037
- 1909 Wash. LEXIS 929
Syllabus
<p>Intoxicating Liquors — Sale — Statutes — Construction. Bal. Code, § 7313, prohibiting the sale of “intoxicating or spirituous” liquors to minors, does not mean “intoxicating spirituous” liquors; and includes beer as an intoxicating though not a spirituous liquor.</p> <p>Same — Selling Liquor to Minors — Information—Duplicity. A complaint charging the sale of beer to four minors on a certain date is not duplicitous as charging four offenses, the reasonable inference being that the beer was sold jointly to all the parties named at one time and as one transaction.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial—Verdict—Form. A verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged in the “information” is not prejudicially erroneous from the fact that the trial was upon a “complaint,” where the two words were used interchangeably throughout the trial; the form prescribed by Bal. Code, § 6961 being only directory.</p> <p>Intoxicating Liquors — Sale to Minors — Evidence—Sufficiency. The evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for selling liquor to a minor, although the minor and bartender testified there was no sale, where the state’s witness testified that the sale was made in his presence and he knew that it was beer from its appearance and smell, the credibility of the witnesses and weight of the evidence being for the jury.</p> <p>Same — Consent of Pabent — Pbima Facie Case. In a prosecution for selling liquor to a minor without the “written permission of his parent,” evidence by the father that he had not consented is sufficient to make a prima facie case, without evidence as to his mother’s consent.</p> <p>Same — Consent of Pabent. The burden of proving parental consent as a justification for the sale of liquor to a minor “without the written permission” of the parents, in violation of Bal. Code, § 7313, is upon the defendant.</p> <p>Same — Issues and Pkoof — Insteucxions. Upon a complaint for the sale of liquor to four minors, where the state elected to proceed upon the sale to one
Judges: Gose
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. PepoonWashington Supreme Court· 1911-03-28· cited 57×
- State v. HardingWashington Supreme Court· 1919-12-01· cited 24×
- State v. WilliamsWashington Supreme Court· 1970-10-01· cited 13×
- Glucina v. Goss Brick Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1911-06-01· cited 13×
- State v. OrtegaNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1968-12-20· cited 7×
- State v. LawsWashington Supreme Court· 1911-01-06· cited 6×
- State v. MakovskyWashington Supreme Court· 1912-01-25· cited 6×
- United States v. StarkeyE.D. Illinois· 1943-10-23· cited 6×
- State v. PolkWashington Supreme Court· 1911-12-30· cited 5×
- People v. BaileyMichigan Supreme Court· 1954-12-29· cited 4×
- State v. McCollumWashington Supreme Court· 1943-03-16· cited 4×
- Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionTexas Attorney General Reports· 1972-07-02
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.