Siceluff v. State

Decided May 15, 1889

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1889-05-15

<p>Liquors : Sale to minor: Agency :</p> <p>Although a minor acts as the agent of his parent in purchasing liquor, if that fact be not disclosed to the seller at the time of the purchase, and the sale is made without the parent’s written consent or order, it is unlawful, and a subsequent disclosure of the agency will not avoid a conviction.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1906

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 Liquors: Sale to minor. As between a seller and an agent who deals-with him without disclosing the fact that he acts as agent, the latter, as well as the principal, is the purchaser.

¶2A liquor seller who contracts with a minor may, therefore,, be convicted of selling liquor to a minor, notwithstanding the fact may subsequently be disclosed that the minor acted as. agent for his parent. Gillen v. State, 47 Ark., 555; Foster v. State, 43 Ark., 365; Ritcher v. State, 63 Miss., 304; Ross v. People, 24 Hun., 591; People v. Garrett, 36 N. W. Rep., 234; Com. v. McGuire, 11 Gray, 460.

¶3Affirmed.