¶1Information for retailing. Conviction and fine.
¶2The information did not aver that the liquor was not sold for medicinal, &c., purposes.
¶3This information was bad, according to the opinion of a majority of the judges in Beebe v. The State, 6 Ind. R. 501. It was there held, by three of the four judges, that the agency portion of the liquor law of 1855 was void; and that every person had a right to retail for the purposes specified in the exceptions to the' statute.
¶4Under this decision, it follows, according to Brutton v. The State, 4 Ind. R. 601, 602, 603, that the information was fatally defective in not negativing that the selling charged was within the exceptions in the statute.
¶5The judgment is reversed. Cause remanded to be dismissed.