such place believed, or had reason to believe, that such minor was over 21 years old.

State vs. Meyer (Tex.), 23 S. W. Rep. 427.

MINOR-SALOONKEEPER MUST PROVE PARENT'S CONSENT.

On the trial of a person charged with selling liquor to a minor, it is incumbent on defendant to prove that he sold it on the written order of the parent, guardian, or person authorized to give such order, since such fact is peculiarly within defendant's knowledge.

Reynolds vs. State (Tex.), 22 S. W. Rep. 18.

MINOR OFFENSE TO SELL TO MINOR FOR ANY PURPOSE.—

It is an offense to sell it to a minor without the written consent of his parents or guardians, as required by Pen. Code, art. 376, though he intended to burn it in a lamp used by his customers in lighting cigars purchased by them from him.

Rucker vs. State (Tex.), 24 S. W. Rep. 902.

MINOR-IT IS SALE TO MINOR WHERE HE PURCHASES LIQUOR FOR AN ADULT WITH ADULT'S MONEY AND WRITTEN ORDER.

A minor, going to a saloon with money furnished by an adult, and having a written order signed by him, bought liquor, which he took to the adult, who with others drank it. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, following former decisions, held that this was a sale to a minor, within the statute.

Horsky vs. State, 36 S. W. Rep. 443.

MINOR-SALOONKEEPER IS LIABLE WHO SELLS TO ANOTHER WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT HE IS PURCHASING FOR MINOR.

A saloonkeeper who, although refusing to sell liquors to minors, sells them to a bystander, with the knowledge that he is purchasing them for the minors, who give the money to the bystander, who in turn pays it to the seller, is liable for selling or causing liquors to be sold to minors.

Starling vs. State (Tex.), 30 S. W. Rep. 445.

MINOR-DELIVERY OF LIQUOR TO A MINOR NOT A SALE TO

HIM.

In the case Laing vs. State 28 S. W. Reporter, 1040, Court of Civil Appeals of Texas the question presented is whether the liquor dealers violated the condition of their bond forbidding them to sell, or permit to be sold, intoxicating liquor to a minor; in other words, whether the facts show a sale to a minor. A minor was with the consent of his parents in the employ of a firm doing business near a saloon; that a member of this firm sent him with a bucket and ten cents to the saloon for the purpose of purchasing for this member of the firm a bucket of beer; that the minor informed the keeper of the saloon that the beer was for one of his employers; that he got the beer and took it to the party who had sent him for it. The minor had frequently before this occasion been sent to a saloon in like manner.

The Court held: The word "sale" is a legal term of fixed and definite meaning. By the contract of sale the property and the title thereto pass to the purchaser. Here the relation of seller and purchaser neither really nor apparently existed between the saloonkeeper and the minor. No title really or apparently passed by the transaction to the minor. On the contrary, it really and apparently passed to the principal-his employer. He and not the minor was the purchaser. We are unable to impute to the legislature an intention to include or cover a transaction beyond the plain import of the language which it used in the enactment of the statute. The sale was to the employer and not to the minor.

MINOR-RETAIL DEALER-BOND.—

In an action to recover statutory penalties on the bond of a retail liquor dealer, in which the breach alleged is that such dealer permitted a minor to enter and remain in his place of business, it is no defense that such minor was a partner in the business, where he is not a party to the bond. Drake vs. State (Tex.), 23 S. W. Rep. 398.

MINOR NOT TO BE ALLOWED ON PREMISES.

The liquor law of 1893, expressly repealing all parts of acts inconsistent therewith by making it a breach of a retail liquor dealer's bond to permit a minor to enter and remain on the premises, only where the liquors are kept for sale "to be drunk on the premises," repeals the provision of the liquor law of 1887, making it a breach of the bond to allow a minor on the premises, though liquors are kept for sale merely to be carried away and used.

Drake vs. State (Tex.), 23 S. W. Rep. 620.

MINOR-UNNECESSARY TO AVER IN INDICTMENT THAT SALOONKEEPER KNEW PERSON TO BE MINOR.

To make a licensed seller of liquors liable under section 16, ch. 32, Code 1887, for selling to a minor, it is not necessary to aver in the indictment that he knew, or had reason to believe, the person to be a minor.

State vs. Bear (W. Va.), 16 S. E. Rep. 368.

CHAPTER XV.

SALES ON SUNDAY AND HOLIDAYS.

ELECTION DAY-GIFT OF INTOXICANTS-ILLEGAL ON ELECTION DAY UNDER ANY PRETEXT.

Under Mansf. Dig., § 1850, making it an offense to give away intoxicating liquors on the day of an election in any county in which the election may be held, it is immaterial that the giving away of the intoxicating liquor has no reference to the election, as the statute makes no exception.

Wolf vs. State (Ark.), 27 S. W. Rep. 77.

SUNDAY-LICENSEE IN TOWN OR CITY THAT TAKES CONTROL OF LIQUOR TRAFFIC CANNOT BE TRIED UNDER STATE STATUTE FOR SUNDAY SALE.

Gen. St. Col. 1883, subd. 18, sec. 3312, provides that towns and cities shall have the "exclusive right to license, regulate, or prohibit the selling or giving away of any intoxicating malt, vinous, mixed, or fermented liquors, within the limits of the city or town," etc.: Held, that where a town takes control of its liquor traffic, under this statute, and grants licenses, a licensee cannot be indicted under a general statute of the state prohibiting "keeping open a tippling house on the Sabbath day."

Cunningham vs. People, Colorado.

SUNDAY SALES-NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW LIQUOR WAS DRANK ON PREMISES.—

To justify a conviction of keeping open a tippling house on the Sabbath, it is not necessary to show that the liquor sold was drunk on the premises; it is enough that it was drawn out and delivered in open vessels.

Harris vs. People (Colo.), 28 Pac. Rep. 1113.

SUNDAY SALE BY CLUB.—

The mere fact that the selling and drinking of intoxicating liquors was "only an incident, and not the main object," of the incorporation of a social club, will make the place where such liquors are dispensed and drunk none the less a tippling house, within the meaning of the statute making penal the keeping open of such houses on the Sabbath day.

Mohrman vs. State (Ga.), 32 S. E. Rep. 143.

SUNDAY-PERMITTING PERSON IN SALOON.

The permitting a person not a member of the saloon proprietor's family to be in his place of business on Sunday is of itself an offense.

State vs Mathis (Ind.), 50 N. E. 398.

CITIZEN OF INDIANA MAY GIVE TO FRIEND ON HOLIDAY.—

On April 18th, 1899 the Appellate Court of Indiana reversed the decision of the lower court. The Court held that the legislature of Indiana has never attempted to legislate directly upon the use of intoxicants by the individual except where such use is carried to excess, and that, while the law fixes a penalty upon "whoever sells or gives away liquors on a holiday," the act must be construed to mean men who are engaged in the traffic, and not a citizen who gives to his friends in a social way.

The court further held that while the appellant, Austin, was technically guilty, and there was no intent on his part to violate the spirit or intent of the law.

SUNDAY-SALE IN DWELLING HOUSE.—

The offense of keeping open a tippling house on the Sabbath day is sufficiently proved by evidence showing that the accused, on at least three different Sundays within the same year, in her dwelling house, sold whisky by retail to different persons, and permitted it to be drunk on the premises.

Williams vs. State (Ga.), 28 S. E. 624.

HOLIDAY-MAY BE FOR PURPOSES OF COMMERCIAL PAPER ONLY AND NOT ONE ON WHICH IT IS ILLEGAL TO SELL LIQUOR.

Act March 9, 1891, entitled, "An act to amend an act entitled, 'An act in relation to promissory notes, bonds, checks and bills of exchange and to designate the holidays to be observed in the presentment, acceptance and payment of the same," and providing that the 30th day of May, among others, shall be a legal holiday, constitutes it such only for the purposes of commercial paper, and does not make it a holiday within the meaning of Rev. St. 1881, § 2098 (Rev St. 1894 §2194), forbidding a sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage on a legal holiday.

State vs. Atkinson (Ind.), 39 N. E. Rep. 51.