Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Ind. 35

Wetzler v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1862

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1862-05-15

<p>To sustain an information for engaging in common labor ori Sunday, by selling unlawfully two gills of spiritous liquor, which were sold by the defendant’s agent in his bar-room, it should appear that the defendant was present, or had some knowledge of the selling when it was being done.</p>

Relies on State ex rel. Kinnison v. Lockwood

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1910

3 state decisions

10186218701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The information charges that Wetzler, “on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, being the 20th of January, 1861, &o., &c., was found at common labor, unlawfully, to-wit: selling three gills of spirituous liquor to one Green Durbin,” &e. The evidence shows that the liquor was sold in the defendant’s bar-room, by his bar-keeper; but there was no evidence tending to show that the defendant was present when the sale was made, or had any knowledge whatever of the selling when it was done. The evidence is plainly insufficient to sustain the conviction. Hipp v. The State, 5 Blackf. 144.

¶2The judgment is reversed with costs.

/18/ind/35 · .json · Public domain