¶1 (after stating the case). We are unable to see how this, upon the facts stated, can be regarded as either a sale or a gift to the minor. It was not a gift to anybody. It was a sale to the father, and the son was only a messenger ; it was not a sale to the son.
¶2 The cases of State v. Laurence, 97 N. C., 492, relied on by the Attorney General, are not applicable to this case. In those cases the sales Or gifts were made to minors and for *415 the use of the minors. In the former case the father had given the liquor dealer permission to give spirituous liquors to the son, and it was properly held that the permission of the father cou'd not “suspend the statute ” and authorize a .sale or gift of intoxicating drink to the son. In the case before us, the sale "was made to the father and for the father, and it was only sent by the son as a messenger for the father.
¶3 The Court can only pass upon the law applicable to the facts, and the very forcible argument of the Attorney General was addressed rather to the moral than the legal aspects of the case.
¶4 Prior to the emancipation of slaves, it was unlawful to give or sell liquors to a slave, without the written consent of the owner or manager of the slave. In State v. McNair, 1 Jones, 180, the defendant was indicted; the proof was that the defendant had delivered liquor to a slave upon the order and for one Higgs, who was the overseer. This Court held a conviction and judgment upon this evidence to be erroneous, and Nash, C. J., said: “ The act under which the indictment is found had no intention to abridge the legitimate use of his slave by the owner; it is still left him; it is not denied he may use him as his agent.” .Fred Gardner was but the agent or messenger of his father— the sale was to the father.
¶5 Error. New trial.