Lillensteine v. State

Decided June 15, 1871

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1871-06-15

Tried before Hon. ,J. MoCaleb Wiley. The facts appear in the opinion. The indictment contains three counts. In the first and second counts the form in the Code is followed, with an averment in the second that the liquor was sold in quantities less than a quart. The third count is drawn with reference to the revenue law of 1868, and attempts to charge an offense under that law. .

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1878

2 state decisions

Relies on Mulvey v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

B. E. SAEEOLD, J.

¶1The indictment contained three counts, two of which charged the defendant with selling vinous or spirituous liquors without license, in the form prescribed by the Eevised Code for the offense described in section 3618. The demurrer to it was properly overruled.

¶2We have decided that section 3618 was not repealed by the revenue act of 1868. — Mulvey v. The State, 43 Ala. 316 ; Campbell v. The State, at present term.

¶3The evidence shows that the defendant, having a license as a wholesale dealer in liquors, &e., sold the liquors on some occasions in quantities less than a quart, and on others, that it was drank on his premises. He was therefore subject to be deemed a retail dealer. — Acts 1868, Rev. Law, § 112, subv. 4, 5. The defendant was not entitled to the charge, that he could not be convicted under the evidence.

¶4The judgment is affirmed.