| Ala. | Nov 15, 1889
Defendant was indicted and convicted, under section 4038 of Code, 1886, for selling liquor to Lawrence Johnson, a minor. The court, ex mero motu, charged the jury, that if Johnson made application to defendant to buy the liquor, and defendant asked him if he was twenty-one years old, and on Johnson replying that he was not, defendant said he could not sell him any liquor, but he could give his money to Silas Fowler, who was near by, and he
But, if conceded that Eowler purchased the liquor, which is the phase of the case presented by the evidence of defendant, the proof satisfactorily shows that he purchased it for Johnson, and that this was known to, and done in the presence of defendant. In such case, he was an aider, abettor, or procurer in the doing of the criminal act. He participated in the criminal design, and his suggestions and acts directly and immediately contributed to the commission of the offense. It was not essential that he should have sold the liquor to Johnson. As said in Walton v. State, 62 Ala. 197" court="Ala." date_filed="1878-12-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/walton-v-state-6510277?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6510277">62 Ala. 197, it is enough, that intending that Johnson should have the use of the liquor, he sold it to another to be given him. “Nor is it true, that a vendor of liquors has no right to dictate to a purchaser how he shall use liquors purchased at his bar. It is not only his right, but his duty, to see that in his bar, and in his presence, such liquors are not given to persons of the class to whom the statute interdicts a sale ox-gift.” This ruling was affirmed in Page v. State, 84 Ala. 446" court="Ala." date_filed="1887-12-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/page-v-state-6513130?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6513130">84 Ala. 446. The charge requested by defendant ignored the evidence tending to show that defendant sold the liquor to Eowler, intending it for the use of Johnson, and was, therefore, properly refused.
Affirmed.