cense, the words "or otherwise disposing of" refer to a disposition of the same class as a sale or gift.

Roberson vs. State (Ala.), 14 South. Rep. 554.

ILLEGAL SALE-WHETHER THE LOAN OF BOTTLE OF WHISKY WAS A SUBTERFUGE OR BONA FIDE, A QUESTION FOR JURY.

On a trial for an unlawful sale of liquor, the evidence showed that defendant loaned a bottle of whisky to one who promised to return it in kind: Held that, if the exchange was made in good faith, it would not be a "sale," and defendant should be acquitted, but if it was a subterfuge, to avoid the statute, it would be a sale, for which defendant should be convicted, and that the jury should have been so charged. Robinson vs. State (Ark.), 27 S. W. Rep. 233.

ILLEGAL SALE-TO FEMALES-INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE SALE IN ROOM NOT USED AS WINE ROOM.—

Under Laws 1891, p. 315, forbidding the sale of liquor to females in any wine room kept in connection with a saloon, evidence of such sale in a room used as a dining room or restaurant, for lodgers in the upper part of the saloon building, to female servants in charge of such rooms, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Walker vs. People (Colo.), 37 Pac. Rep. 29.

ILLEGAL SALE-A PERSON WHO RECEIVES MONEY AND DELIVERS WHISKY MAY BE REGARDED AS SELLER.

In a prohibition county a person who receives money from another with a request to procure whisky, and who shortly afterward delivers the whisky, may be treated as the seller, if no other person filling that character appears, and if it is not shown where, how or from whom the whisky was obtained.

Grant vs. State Sup. Ct., Georgia.

ILLEGAL SALE-BUYING FOR ANOTHER.—

If the accused, acting bona fide as the agent of another, bought liquor for the latter with the latter's money, and delivered it to the person for whom it was bought, these facts

did not constitute a sale of liquor by the accused, whether the person from which he bought was legally authorized to sell or not; but if, in a prima facie case of guilt, he made a statement to the jury, and therein gave an explanation of the transaction which was a mere subterfuge to cover up an unlawful sale of liquor by himself, the jury would be authorized to find him guilty.

White vs. State (Ga.), 19 S. E. Rep. 49.

ILLEGAL SALE-IN COUNTRY.—

Rev. St. 1893, ch. 43, § 16, making it a criminal offense to sell intoxicating liquors outside of cities, towns, and villages "in any less quantity than five gallons, and in the original package as put up by the manufacturer," prohibits sales of less than five gallons, except when contained in an original package.

Tipton vs. People (Ill.), 40 N. E. Rep. 838.

ILLEGAL SALE-OFFENSE IS IN THE SELLING, NOT IN FURNISHING MONEY TO PURCHASE.—

A per

Money was furnished by a city to a person, to enable him to buy beer to detect violations of an ordinance. son willingly sold him beer. Held, that the offense was in the selling, and the accused could not complain of the city's acts.

City of Evanston vs. Meyers (Ill.), N. E. Rep. 204.

ILLEGAL SALE-LIQUOR FOUND ON PREMISES PRESUMPTIVE PROOF.

On trial there was no proof of actual sales of liquor, but there was evidence that defendant's customers drank beer which he delivered to them, and that beer and whisky were found in his premises: Held that, as he was not authorized to sell such liquor, the finding of it in his place of business was presumptive evidence that it was kept there for sale, in violation of law; and that presumption was not overcome by evasive testimony of ownership.

State vs. Farley (Iowa), 53 N. W. Rep. 1089.

ILLEGAL SALE—IGNORANCE OF INTOXICATING QUALITY NO

DEFENSE.

It is no defense to a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors that defendant did not know that they were intoxicating.

State vs. Lindeon (Iowa), 54 N. W. Rep. 1075.

The purchaser of intoxicating liquor, which is sold in violation of law, is not a participant with the seller, and therefore is not guilty as the principal offender.

State vs. Cullins (Kan.), 36 Pac Rep. 56.

ILLEGAL SALE "KEEPING" LIQUOR ON PERSON INTENDING TO SELL UNLAWFULLY.

A person who has in his pocket, on his person, intoxicating liquor, which he intends to sell in violation of law, is guilty of "keeping" intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same unlawfully.

Commonwealth vs. Ryan (Mass.), 35 N. E. Rep. 673.

ILLEGAL SALE-TENEMENT.

A building occupied as a dwelling, whether attached to the land or not, is a "tenement," within the meaning of the statute prohibiting the keeping and maintenance of a tenement for the illegal keeping and sale of intoxicating liquor.

Commonwealth vs. Mullen (Mass.), 44 N. E. Rep. 343.

ILLEGAL SALE-EVIDENCE OF.

On trial of defendant for maintaining a building used for the unlawful sale and keeping of liquor, there was evidence that the defendant owned a neighboring house, from which he was accustomed to carry beer to the building occupied by him, and alleged to be a nuisance, and that this carrying of beer was generally coincident with the entrance of men into the latter building: Held, that evidence of the discovery of beer and whisky, seemingly defendant's, in the cellar of the neighboring house, was admissible.

Commonwealth vs. Lyons (Mass.), 35 N. E. Rep. 316.

ILLEGAL SALE-EFFECT OF STATUTE IN EXTENDING BOUNDARY OF COUNTIES.

Pub. St., ch. 213, §19, which provides that "an offense committed on the boundary line of two counties, or within one hundred rods of such line, may be alleged to have been committed, and may be prosecuted and punished, in either county," in a case where defendant is indicted for the local offense of keeping a liquor nuisance, has the effect of extending, not only the county line, but also the town line, for the purpose of allegation, prosecution, and punishment, into the county and town adjoining.

Commonwealth vs. Matthews (Mass.), 45 N. E. Rep. 92.

ILLEGAL SALE-ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.

On trial for bringing liquor into a town for sale therein contrary to law, evidence that the liquor was brought to a place in such town which was used for the unlawful sale of liquor, is admissible to show that defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the liquor was intended to be sold there contrary to law.

Commonwealth vs. Loewe (Mass.), 39 N. E. Rep. 192.

ILLEGAL SALE-EVIDENCE.—

Upon the trial for maintaining a liquor nuisance, it was shown that intoxicated persons had been seen on defendant's premises; that whisky was discovered in an adjoining building, the key of which was found in defendant's house. Evidence was offered by the state to show that defendant's daughter was seen going to the adjoining house, and returned with something hidden under her dress; that an officer seized this object from the outside, and found it in size and shape like a quart bottle; that he asked to see it, and that defendant would not permit him: Held, admissible notwithstanding the way in which the officer got his knowledge of the object concealed.

Commonwealth vs. Welch (Mass.), 40 N. E. Rep. 104.

ILLEGAL SALE—WHERE ORDERED FOR ANOTHER.—

The defendant, charged with selling whisky to F in quantities less than a gallon without a license, is not guilty

where F got the defendant to order the whisky for him from a dealer, and he delivered it to F under the order.

Waddle vs. State (Miss.), 24 So. Rep. 311.

ILLEGAL SALE-THROUGH INTERMEDIARY.—

One who, at the request of a proprietor of a bar, though not connected therewith, goes thereto, and procures liquor for a customer, handing the proceeds to the proprietor, is guilty of selling intoxicating liquors to the same extent as to the proprietor of the bar.

Beck vs. State (Miss.), 13 South. Rep. 835.

ILLEGAL SALE-EVIDENCE-ERROR.

On a trial for selling liquor in violation of a town ordinance, it is error to admit evidence of two distinct sales. Naul vs. State (Miss.), 12 South. Rep. 903.

ILLEGAL SALE-WOMEN.—

Under Cr. Laws, § 261 (Comp. St., p. 578), making it unlawful to sell liquor in any place where women are employed or allowed to assemble for the purpose of the business therein carried on, an indictment charging the sale of liquor in a place where women are both employed and allowed to assemble is not bad for duplicity.

State vs. Marion (Mont.), 36 Pac. Rep. 1044.

ILLEGAL SALE-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-NORTH DAKOTA.—

Chapter 110 of the Laws of 1890, entitled "An act to prescribe the penalties for the unlawful manufacture, sale, and keeping for sale, of intoxicating liquors, and to regulate the sale, barter, and giving away of such liquors for medicinal, scientific and mechanical purposes," is not in conflict with section 61 of article 2 of the state constitution, which provides that "no bill shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title, but a bill which violates this provision shall be invalidated thereby only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed."

State vs. Haas, North Dakota.