*1 spelled voluntarily out used. undertook a risk complain policy may Hie and it because the not now peril against crystallized insur- insured into fact. An Bombay company against ance which insures rain in during complain months if treas- summer cannot its ury liquidated by July. a flood of claims in
Only more matters two need be considered. appellant experts argues that because the called two plaintiffs agree particulars, did not in all their testimony ignored completely, must be and that, being plaintiffs expert would have no evi- done, support charge negligence against dence their support To defendant. this contention the defendant Rapid cites the case of Mudano v. Phila. Transit Co., apply Pa. but case does not to the facts Although plaintiffs’ experts here. in this case dif- fered opinions, in their it somewhat cannot be said absolutely that their conclusions contradicted one an- other. appellant finds contradictions between
Judge’s charge points. and Ms affirmance of We do not find nor them, do find we reason in the rec- granting judgment ord for trial or new n.o.v.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Bell concurs in the result. Benjamin
Mr. Justice R. Jones dissents. Appellant. Commonwealth v. Koczwara, *2 Argued April reargued Be- 1959; June 30, 1959.
fore J., C. Jones, Bok Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, JJ. McBride, *3 appellant. Epstein, for L.
Irving Attorney, Assistant District with J. Joseph Omino, M, appel- O’Malley, Attorney, him District Garlón lee,
Opinion November Mr. Justice Cohen, 1959: appeal judgment from the Court
This is an sentencing County Quarter of Lackawanna of Sessions in the Lackawanna to three months the defendant County a fine of five hundred dollars and Jail, involving prosecution, case violations costs Liquor Pennsylvania Code. is the licensee defendant, John Koczwara, operator on Jackson Street an establishment as J. K.’s At that City Tavern. known Scranton by the place license issued a restaurant he had Pennsylvania Liquor Lackawanna Board. The Control five Jury County on indicted defendant Grand Liquor first for violations of the Code. counts per- the defendant counts averred second unaccompanied guardians parents, mitted minors, frequent supervisors, the tavern on Febru- or other charged ary the de- the third count 1958; 1st and 8th, February selling 8th, to minors on fendant beer with permitting charged the defendant the fourth 1958; February beer to sold minors 8th, 1958, prior con- of a final count an averment the fifth or was Code. viction for violations prior was Prior to the averment convictions trial, jury upon consideration of the mo- from the removed de- that submission of the same would tion of counsel right prive ex- of his fundamental the defendant former convictions. clude evidence evidence, conclusion of the At the Commonwealth’s charging by the count three sale indictment, personally from to the defendant was removed minors, jury’s judge ground trial consideration on the per- that there was no evidence the defendant had present participated sonally in the sale was place. sales to minors took Defense tavern when then demurred the evidence as to the other counsel counts. The demurrer was overruled. Defend- three thereupon introducing ant rested without evidence *4 acquittal. of for a directed mo- and verdict moved jury jury case to the the went tion the denied, was guilty a of as to verdict each of the remain- returned permitting ing two counts of three counts: minors to premises frequent parental the licensed without or supervision, permitting the of count other sales minors.
Upon the conclusion of the defendant a trial, filed judgment. argument arrest of After motion before by Judge the motion was the court overruled en lane, pay the costs who sentenced defendant Horan, prosecution, of a fine of hundred dollars and five undergo imprisonment County Jail in the Lackawanna for three months.. appeal Superior took an to the Court, defendant judg- opinion Judge by in an affirmed the which, Hirt, petition for
ment and sentence of the court. A lower appeal by an of an was filed defendant. allowance pe- importance Because issues raised, appeal granted. tition and an allowed was which, Defendant raises two both contentions, undisputed question of this facts whether effect, imposed support judgment by the and sentence ease Judge Quarter fact found as Sessions Court. Hoban purchase [by every minors] was instance the “in not identified name, made from bartender, boys There the bartender. to the was made service any present on the defendant no was was evidence nor testified to these witnesses, one of occasions persona,! knowledge any sales that he had persons premises.” on the there- We, them or to other responsibility must determine criminal fore, com- Control Board for acts licensee upon employees premises, his by his without mitted personal knowledge, participation, presence, or passed regulatory under acts statute violate valid power. police Commonwealth’s employer crimi- in almost all cases is not
While responsible nally em- for the acts of his unlawful participates approves, ployees, he consents to, unless struggled all have courts over nation in such acts, applying years this rule the framework within liquor.” “controlling intoxicating See the sale of (1942). At common 139 A.L.R. law, Anno., attempt superior respondeat the doctrine of to invoke deeply afoul of criminal case have run our in a guilt jurisprudence ingrained notions *5 580 personal decades, In recent individual.1
must be and regulatory many enacted-detailed states have however, provisions essentially non-criminal, are in fields which pure drug speeding ordinances, e.g., food and acts, wage building regulations, minimum and child labor, gen- legislation. are Such statutes hour and maximum although light penalties, erally vio- and enforceable appli- considerations are labelled lations crimes, applica- totally those different from to are cable them delinquency moral true involve ble to crimes, imprisonment punishable by or another are and which statutory are penalty. crimes Such so-called serious attempt machinery reality of crimi- to utilize in regu- enforcing arm as an for social nal administration punishment purely lations of a civil nature, questions wrongdoing or totally to of moral unrelated general guilt. interest It is that the social here populace well-being security of the has been held and particular outweigh of the the individual interest to imposed despite penalty is the defend- defendant. criminal intent lack of a or mens rea. ant’s police power legitimate areas Not least liquor. intoxicating legislature the control of is recently As Mr. Justice stated Benjamin B. Jones Liquor License Pa. 360, Tahiti Inc. 395 Case, Bar, perhaps (1959), area “There is no other 150 A. 2d permissible state action within which the exercise respondeat superior in tort The distinction between law law, application law In tort its to is obvious. employed purpose settling for the the incidence of doctrine upon party who best But the criminal loss bear such loss. can impose supported by totally concepts. penal law is different We upon interests, injure partly who treatment those or menace social partly prevent reform, order the continuation of the anti activity partly per social deter If a others. defendant has sonally up lived social standards of the criminal law injured impose anyone, why penal has not menaced treatment? *6 police power plenary the
the than in of a state more is regulation sale of alcoholic and control of the use and beverages.”2 abundantly conduct of clear that the It is liquor only the to the extent and business is lawful permitted by manner embark statute. Individuals who enterprise knowledge on of consid- such an do so with rigidly peril, erable circum- since their actions are scribed the Code. peculiar one
Because of nature of this the business, permission applies for receives from the Com- who liquor carry to on the trade assumes monwealth highest degree responsibility to his citizens. fellow duty As the he is licensee under Board, personal only regulate to in a his own conduct man- permit also ner consistent he but received, with has any employee to to control the conduct of acts and liquor. fealty he Such is whom entrusts sale the Commonwealth demands quo quid pro privilege entering highly in return for the re- highly important, stricted is more what dan- and, liquor. intoxicating selling business gerous sought to the instant the defendant In has case, provided safeguards all the to surround himself with pale of criminal sanctions. He has those within responsibility imposing argued criminal that a statute strictly, all resolved should be construed with doubts position entire- While defendant’s is in his favor. dealing
ly remember that are we must we correct, police plenary statutory crime the state’s within liquor legisla- power. regulation, the field of In comprehensive regu- aimed at has enacted Code ture Cavanaugh 361, (1950), Gelder, 2d 85 v. 364 Pa. A. also See great lengths legal establish the went wherein this Court trade. for the state’s control of the Such bases constitutional 12, Liquor Code, April regulation now embodied Act is seq. et §1-101 L. 47 P.S. 1951, P. alcoholic and sale the use controlling
lating raised is whether here question beverages. lia- vicarious impose intended
legislature on committed acts licensee-principal bility participation his presence, without premises knowledge. as Common ago long has stated,
This Court
(1891),
As the defendant has
there is a distinc-
out,
requirement
the
tion between
of a mens rea
4
may
legally
It
a
is established
license
be
sus
pended
or revoked for
of
violations
the Code committed
em
though
ployees of the licensee even
no
there is
evidence
Liquor
knew of
violations.
licensee
such
v.
McGrath
Control
187,
Superior
Board,
(1958) ;
185 Pa.
Ct.
584
imposition liability the acts vicarious absolute rely may in that the courts of another. below, ing prior authority, make a distinction.5 on have failed to such recognize fully More any it.6 n I we case, legislature enact find that the intent of we over, ing only common this not to eliminate the Code was place very requirement to a a also of mens but law rea, liq responsibility upon high degree the holder anyone nor to that neither he uor license make certain upon prohibited employ acts commit premises. im of care is a burden licensed Such protect public posed upon to the licensee in order inherently potentially noxious effects of from the opinion express dangerous no course, business. We, imposing legislature’s vicarious wisdom of as responsibility certain sections of the under may may not economic-socio be an There Code. theory justification liability logical for such legislature determination is for the Such deterrence. requirements long the constitutional are so as to make, met. 5 distinguish extremely present careful also be We must corporate liability, question as criminal such from situation Liberty Company, v. 84 Products involved was penetrating inquiry Superior (1925). For into Ct. 473 Pa. Mueller, Corporation, subject, U. Mens Rea And 19 see latter (1957). 21 L. Rev.
Pitt.
6 extremely interesting analysis For an incisive offenses, requirement Mueller, in criminal Com rea see On mens sym Rea, (1958). Law 42 Minn. L. While we mon Mens Rev. eloquent fully plea pathize author’s for a return with the implications guilt, determina moral we await further Supreme Court of the tions United States as whether California, v. of Lambert 355 U. rationale S. S. Ct. 240 statutory (1957), to all will be extended been offenses have requiring interpreted Allen, a criminal mens rea. See also (1957) ; Mueller, Review, L. J. 1120 66 Yale Rea And Book Mens It, (1955). L. Law 58 W. Va. Without Rev. *9 requirements legislature, Can consistent with the liability? process, of due thus establish absolute Code, Were this the defendant’s first violation $100-|300, penalty solely and the a minor fine of from judg- upholding a we would have no hesitation such liquor by accepting ment. must Defendant, license, prior bear this financial risk. conviction Because of judge felt trial violations Code, however, compelled mandatory language the stat- under the impose only 494(a), Section an increased ute, fine of five hundred a three month but also dollars, imprison- imprisonment. sentence of Such sentence imposed vicariously liability ment ain case where consistently cannot be with sanctioned this Court Article I law land clause of Section 9, Pennsylva- the Constitution of the Commonwealth of nia.7 already
The Courts of the Commonwealth have permit legislature carry strained to over respondeat superior apply civil doctrine of it and to enforcing regulatory as a means of scheme theory covers the trade. We have done on the so petty the Code established involv- misdemeanors ing only light monetary It unthink- fines. would be impose responsibility able to vicarious criminal in cases involving principal Although true crimes. to hold a criminally might possibly liable be an effective means enforcing it law do violence to our order, sophisticated concepts modern-day justice. more Lia- bility for all true carries wherein offense crimes, jail upon exclusively it a must be based sentence, personal imagined readily causation. can be meticulously even licensee who is careful in the choice supervise employees single every cannot of his act deprived liberty life, prop “. nor can bo be See. 9. . . of Ms erty, judgment peers unless of Ms or the law of the land.”
586
so
liberty
rest on
cannot
A man’s
the subordinates.
employee
a mis-
commit
will
frail a reed as whether
Responsibility
Sayre,
judgment.
Criminal
See
take in
(1930).
689
48
L. Rev.
Harv.
For Acts Of Another,
duty to maintain
of its
is ever mindful
This Court
safeguards
trial.
proper
in a criminal
the
and establish
imprisonment
imposition
here would
the
To sanction
law
change
the substantive
make a serious
justi
no
find
for which we
one
of the Commonwealth,
jurisdiction
no case in
found
fication. We have
term,
of
prison
permitted
for a vicarious
has
which
has
Supreme
the
States
United
Court
fense. The
process
impose
limita
only recently to
due
had occasion
making
legislature
upon
of a state
the actions
tions
unknowing
California,
criminal. Lambert v.
conduct
(1957).
courts
240
Our
78 S. Ct.
own
355
S.U.
225,
protect
again
stepped
a defendant
time and
have
responsible
criminally
being
about
for acts
held
from
knowledge
lit
had
no
and over which he
he had
Supe
142 Pa.
v.
control.
Unkrich,
tle
Commonwealth
(1940)
v.
;
In process deprives defendant of under the due law declaring are not that Koczwara must these we facts, as a first offender under the He has treated Code. be clearly for a law second time and must violated holding accordingly. only punished we are Therefore, judgment imprisonment of the as calls for so much leaving intact and we are the five hundred is invalid, imposed Judge subse- fine under the dollar Hoban quent section. offense respect to defendant’s final With contention penalty improperly was increased meted out under adopt in- provisions 494(a), we of Section respect. opinion Superior in that Court formed penalties enlarges supra, “Section 494, who had violated of a offender conviction second prior provisions indictment averred a Code. . motion of . On
conviction of defendant. . defend- indictment ant’s the averment counsel, however, jury’s from consideration. And was removed charge possible prejudice defendant avoid out the indictment not sent a former was conviction, jury. C.& In 54 D. with the Commonwealth v. Scott, *11 distinguished judge (1945), That 252 said: ‘1. con- contain the indictment must an averment such viction and sentence. 2. That where there is no aver- ment of a former in the the conviction information, present- grand jury may of such its own make motion, the ment in the indictment. 3. That on trial of the may sub- substantive the Commonwealth not offense, mit for- evidence of the former unless the conviction, put may mer evidence to his conviction in affect put credibility or the defendant has his character reputation original and the indict- evidence, former the averment of should with ment, conviction, jury; copy, to the be sent out but an exact exception may of such be. 4. That averment, after conviction on the substantive the dis- averment, present attorney suggestion writing, trict should why enlarged cause sentence show should not be imposed, may defendant answer.’ What is in the instant case consistent was done with the suggested procedure Judge above The in- Hargest. jury. out
dictment not sent with the was And after attorney suggestion filed the district verdict prior suggestion, In his answer to conviction. identity pre- admitted
defendant offender viously convicted and sentenced. When his admis- proven to was be a defendant second offender un- sion, 588 section the court bound under was Code,
der prescribed.” enlarged penalty impose there 494 Judgment, affirmed. is as modified, Opinion Dissenting Concurring Jus- Mr. tice Bell: judgment my question Although is close, principle by Sellers, v. ruled in Commonwealth case is 357; Pa. v. 132 Holstein, Pa. Commonwealth 32; 130 v. Pa. Commonwealth 615; v. Zelt, Commonwealth Superior v. Ct. Commonwealth 317; Pa. Johnston, Superior (affirmed Pa. Ct. 328 146 Pa. Jackson, Superior Ct. 456) 137 Pa. v. Zasloff, Commonwealth ; Superior 200. Ct. v. 161 Pa. 96; Borek, by the is drawn I distinction which believe distinguish weight majority of insufficient govern case. the instant judgment the sentence
I affirm speaking opinion Judge for a unanimous Hirt, Superior Court. *12 by
Dissenting Opinion Musmanno: Mr.. Justice doing abso- it has in is what The Court this case judicial laying lutely right to do. It no is aside its officiating As- and of General robes members sembly. declaring It is a crime has no existence which imposing penalty it is a which the statute books, in by the criminal code. not authorized in The defendant John Koczwara a restaurant owns because of a license issued Scranton where, Pennsylvania, by. the of au- him he is liquor. intoxicating to sell He indicted thorized was County in Lackawanna violations the trial it established that on Code. At was several purchased occasions and entered the minors restaurant Judge, sustaining beer. Trial the verdict jury said which convicted Koczwara on three counts, opinion refusing judgment: in his a motion in arrest purchase every “In made a bar- instance the from was boys by not identified service to the tender, and name, was made was no bartender. There evidence present any one defendant on of the occa- was sions these nor testified that he had witnesses, personal knowledge of the to them or to other sales persons premises.” on the appealed Superior
Koczwara to the Court which af- firmed convictions. We allocatur. allowed Majority doing something of this Court is which justification can find no in all the law books enlighten judges ornament the libraries and and lawyers in this Commonwealth. the con- sustains person admittedly viction for acts not committed performed presence, not in his not him, accom- plished at his even done direction, within his knowledge. stigmatizing It is him a conviction point personal responsibility, for an act which, place is as far him removed from as if it took across Majority’s unique, the seas. The decision is so so’novel, put spectacles, so bizarre that one must on re- wipe put move them to then them lenses, and again in order to himself assure that what he reads is judicial proclaimed Philadelphia, decision Liberty Independence home of the locale Bell, place country and the where Hall, fathers our to draft met the Constitution of the United States, Cl).arta Magna of the liberties of Americans hope justice seeking everywhere. beacon of mankind The decision handed in this case down throws applies shadow over that Constitution, eraser to the Rights, Liberty many Bill and muffles the Bell which *13 ago sang song decades its of liberation from monarchi- to right life, inalienable cal over man’s domination happiness. Our pursuit legal sys- and the of liberty, will is The today tem based on decision precedent. feed Dracos may future on which precedent become content. absolutist and tyrannical to their case, the instant “In The Opinion says: Majority all himself with to surround sought the defendant has the pale those within provided safeguards im- that a statute criminal sanctions. He has argued construed be should posing responsibility his favor.” all doubts resolved in with strictly, shouldn’t that? is wrong Why But what come which have call the safeguards defendant upon strug- centuries of freemen to American through down man’s maintaining dignity for upholding gle di- not done, he has not be what right punished or approved? rected, ration- superstructure
The builds its Majority and mis- foundation of fallacy alization a spongy “It abun- Opinion is conception. says: The Majority is liquor clear the conduct business dantly permitted by the extent and manner lawful only more is was said affirming This what only statute.” “The namely: liquor Trial business Court, fully by its lawful an business and conduct is unlawful only statute permitted extent and manner liquor to sell and other alcoholic persons licensing police is an exercise power.” beverages If is not unlawful business. liquor business then of Pennsylva- it is unlawful, in an business. this engaged illegal Obviously nia is is as lawful as cannot so. business openly conducted Commonwealth. other business its does save broad statement The Majority unlawful it “is business is by adding the liquor to the and manner permitted extent lawful only In supposed modification ac- fact, statute.” only *14 What premise. centuates of the major the absurdity can equally liquor about the business Majority says be business said of milk business because milk those who is to the extent that lawful obviously only and dis- milk bottles engage milking filling cows, and regu- them abide the laws tributing profit, by lations regulat- of the and Commonwealth controlling the milk ing business. is
The so-called business in liquor Pennsylvania authorized States* Constitution of the United and of the laws Pennsylvania. it
How then can That abuse the people unlawful? consumption into liquor is evident aby glance includes cocktail lounge tavern, convention, conventions of dedicated to people law. upholding over-abundant individual However, imprudently liquor le consumption has with the do nothing itself. gality business
It is proper highly commendable, course, should as it Legislature has indeed place, placed, restrictions on the sale of It many liquor. has wisely proclaimed that liquor shall not be sold to it minors, has that minors shall properly provided not be allowed to frequent places where is it liquor but has not sold, said that liquor sale illegal can be to a charged person not who has made such a has directed sale, has not condoned is it, it, wholly ignorant of it. into introduces its Majority discussion a prop-
osition which to contemplate. shocking speaks It “vicarious Such liability”. a concept is as alien soil to American as the upas tree. There was a time in China when felon convicted sentenced to death could offer his brother or other close relative in * enjoys being only business the distinction of individually imprimatur which has business received the (Amendment XXI). U. S. Constitution decapitation. allowed such stead for The Chinese law thought liability”.' I “vicarious- criminal never ap- anything Pennsylvania look favor barbarity. proaching revolting so ,:'The Opinion attempts give authority to Majority usurpation referring twenty-five legislative its specific designated Sec acts ’are unlawful Gen tion Code. is true proscribed *15 Assémbly certain situ eral has enumerated Legislature per the said a but has nowhere ations, personal may act com a son be tried and convicted for night the the of mitted in .darkness his-absence and knowledge utter lack of thereof. some, upon Battling stand to terrain solid . .for points to.uphold position, Majority to the its unstable phantom. argument fortify to an seeks its invisible -.It. by by it not it finds in the but does what Code, what not in the It that the omission find Code. asserts “knowingly” a the Section 494 “indicates word from intent, legislative knowledge eliminate both and crim- to ingredients necessary offenses.” such inal-intent person’s.liberties hang not so But a should on thin sovereign body the thread “indicates.” Where the as. Assembly, the General decides Commonwealth, deprived liberty, good name citizen is to.be of his or life, merely upon it the commission of a certain does act, person penalty awaiting “indicate” the drastic who specifi- provision. specific legislative It violates the language cally penalty. mandatory If orders the punish person Legislature to acts intended for (assuming another it the constitu- committed had power for so), do it have tional declared liquor-dispensing within a es- certain acts committed proprietor responsi- criminally will tablishment be Legislature present; did not.” or But the ble “whether fit. to add- .add such This is now not see words. Court doing usurping ing it those words and, so, no has functions I it of the Legislature repeat, which, to do. authority feebleness Majority, recognizing apparently intention of “indicates” to an support verb punish
Legislature for acts committed without this frail to reinforce presence attempts accused, Section reed into its by pumping language stalk “It person, shall unlawful for 491, (1) any namely, or keep or or employe expose himself, agent, or offer to or ... sell sale, directly indirectly sell within in ac- liquor except this Commonwealth, cordance act and the provisions regula- tions of the board.” then on to “The has Court goes Superior say: placed such an Com
long interpretation the statute. monwealth 157 Pa. Superior v. Ct. 2d Speer, A. (1945)”.
But in Speer case proprietors establishment there involved were of pos- convicted adulterated sessing liquors. an offense Possession is *16 of which a proprietor be con- charged because may he examine ceivably inspect to may his stock see it what but in embraces, this case something we have different. Here the defendant is with charged doing someone else what did. He was not with charged aof he was knowledge charged status, with performing act physical which was concededly performed by him or even within of his I periphery cognizance.
repeat the Trial Court’s “There findings: was no evi- dence was present on one any defendant of the occasions to these nor that hy witnesses, testified had he personal Icnowledge sales to or them of ” to other the premises on persons
While the facts in the case Speer are of course dis- from the tinguishable facts in this as above case, I not accept shown, Speer case as authority in because it any event also makes the insup- wholly liquor
portable un- that: “Tbe business is statement say business is unlawful lawful.” To envelop everyone employed wheth- in the is to business, proprietor of a er he a clerk in a State Store, of in a cloud restaurant, waitress hotel, equivocal is impropriety This conduct. and assumed contrary it to law. as unfair as is previously ICoczwara had been defendant John The be- Code and, convicted violation imposed, in the Trial of that Court conviction, cause a sentence of three months’ addition to a fine of $500, Opinion imprisonment. Majority im- finds the The prisonment part contrary Thus, of the sentence to law. things say about to the other I have had in addition compelled myself pin Majority Opinion, I find inconsistency. Majority says that bouquet it the jail permit sentencing “for it a man cannot knowledge he no over had acts about which he little control.” had imprisonment says: a case “Such sentence imposed vicariously liability cannot be sanc-
where consistently the law Court tioned I of the Article Constitution clause Section land Pennsylvania.” But if of the Commonwealth person Majority the incarceration of a sanction cannot knowledge, it no how -can he had for acts of which imposition of it sanction a fine? can How sanction at all? a conviction enlarges inconsistency Majority it on its when stepped again
says: time courts have “Our own being criminally protect from held a defendant re- knowledge sponsible acts which he had no about wrong little he had control.” If it is and over which *17 jail person by for acts another, a committed to send wrong to him at convict all? There are those is it not good they names their extent that see who value degrading in a harm conviction as as much a jail sentence. The laceration of a reputation, man’s of his blemishing good of his name, wrecking a criminal prestige court by conviction a blast may person’s chances for honorable success life to such an extent that a sentence jail can add much to hardly the ruin to him already wrought the conviction alone. extends a Majority sympathetic pre- hand to
vent the jail doors from shut behind John clanging Koczwara. “We says: would be utterly remiss were not to do so we under these facts.” But is it not re- miss in to save refusing Koczwara’s constitutional pre- Is it not rogatives? remiss not this down striking conviction which engrafts upon the criminal code some- which until time thing up this has been unheard in the Is not Pennsylvania? it remiss in not a reversing conviction which cannot be based on provision written it law? Is remiss in a criminal statute a giving broad in- terpretation (against accused) instead of a strict interpretation as our decisions have hun- proclaimed dreds of times?
I conclude saying has been so Majority remiss in the conviction in I affirming case be remiss if I did not would myself dissent against decision flouts the which Bill Constitution, ignores and introduces into temple Rights of the law rite of the Asiatic “vicarious criminal liability.” Opinion Dissenting Me. Justice McBride: that a man I sells agree liquor who to a minor if he did not even punished may know the per- he sold was minor. But son whom in my opinion, does not and cannot statute validly create in- misdemeanor under dictable licensee *18 for the a fine or punished' imprisonment, both, here, to a in selling minor, where, act of an employee knowledge, the licensee’s act is done without itself -1 reverse the or acquiescence. judgment consent, the defendant. and discharge
Chojnacki Estate. October 1959. Before C. J., Argued Jones, Bell, JJ. Cohen Bok, Jones,