108 Va. 882 | Va. | 1908
delivered the opinion of the court.
Section 19 of the acts of assembly approved March 12, 1908, (Acts 1908, p. 275), commonly known as the “Byrd Liquor Law,” provides, inter alia, that “No person * * * shall knowingly sell (ardent spirits) to any intoxicated person.” And in section 27 of the act it is provided, that “any person violating any of the provisions of * * " this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor * * * , and shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars * * '* and shall be required to give bond for twelve months with approved security in the penalty of five hundred dollars, and conditioned that he will not violate the provisions of this act.”
Plaintiff in error, Daniel O’Donnell, having a license to sell liquor by retail at his barroom in the town of Harrisonburg, in the county of Rockingham, was indicted in the circuit court of that county for a violation of the above statute, in that he did, on the 26th day of May, 1908, sell to one J. L. Sherrard one-half a pint of whisky, knowing the said Sherrard to be
We are asked to review and reverse this judgment on the ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the evidence, and because the trial court erred in giving and refusing instructions.
That the sale of liquor was made as charged in the indictxnent is proved by the evidence beyond all question. In fact, the defendant, when testifying in his own behalf, practically admitted that fact; and we pass over the question, whether or not Sherrard, at the time of the sale to him, was intoxicated, and the fact apparent to anyone having occasion to observe his condition, with the remark only, that the evidence not only tended to prove that such was his condition, but proved it beyond all reasonable doubt. The sole question, therefore, for our consideration is whether or not the jury were misdirected or misled by the instructions of the court.
Four instructions were given on behalf of the Commonwealth, which will be set out with the official report of this opinion. Practically, the only objection made to these instructions is that the court told the jury, that if they believed from the evidence that J. L. Sherrard purchased half a pint of whisky at the bar of Daniel O’Donnell on the 26th day of May, 1908, whether said purchase was made from said O’Donnell or some person employed by him in his said barroom, and at the time of said sale the said Sherrard was intoxicated, and that said intoxication of said Sherrard at the time was perfectly apparent so that the seller must have observed the fact that he wa§ intoxicated, they shall find the accused guilty, etc. The instructions asked for by the defendant, which the court refused,
The sale in question was made, as the evidence shows, by the son of the defendant, who was employed by the latter in his barroom and entrusted with the conduct of the same in the absence of the defendant, and the evidence also shows that the defendant at the time of the sale to Sherrard was in fact absent from his place of business.
Much stress is laid by counsel for the defendant, in the argument of the case here, upon the fact that the language of the statute is that no person shall hnowingly sell to an intoxicated person, and he argues that if the defendant did not know himself that Sherrard was intoxicated when the sale of the whisky was made by his clerk, there could he no conviction in this case.
Clearly, as it appears to us, the term ''knowingly sell” is referable to the condition of the person to whom the liquor is sold and not to the sale for manifestly if that interpretation of the language were adopted the whole purpose of the statute would be defeated, as the penalty for making the prohibited sale could be easily avoided. It would be necessary only, under that interpretation of the statute, for a person engaged in the business of selling ardent spirits to absent himself from his place of business and leave his clerks free to make sales to any and all persons, regardless of their condition or age. It is true that the person who actually makes the sale is liable to prosecution under the statute as well as the proprietor of the place of business where the prohibited sale is made, but this does not relieve the proprietor of responsibility for the illegal sale.
To the case of Williams v. Hendricks, 41 L. R. A. 650, there is a note citing a large number of these cases, some of which are entirely irreconcilable in principle with others of them; but, as stated, this conflict is due to the phraseology of the various statutes of the character of the one which we have under consideration.
In Carroll v. State, 63 Md. 551, 3 Atl. 29, it was held that the principal is bound by the act of his agent in selling liquor to a minor in violation of the law, if the agent is pursuing the ordinary business entrusted to him by-such principal, on the ground that intention is not an essential element of the offense, but that the offense is constituted by the act of selling, whether done by the principal or by his agent; and that this is true, even though the agent had violated the instructions of his principal in making such sale.
In State v. Kittelle, 110 N. C. 560, 15 S. E. 103, 15 L. R. A. 694, 28 Am. St. Rep. 698, it was held, that “the proprietor of a barroom is criminally liable for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor to a minor by his clerk, although, it is made in his absence, without his knowledge and in violation of his instructions.” Under the statute involved in that case, knowledge of the infancy of the person to whom the liquor was sold was an essential element of the crime, and the court held, necessarily, that the agent’s knowledge should be imputed to the principal, the opinion saying, that the doctrine that the agent’s knowledge is the knowledge of the principal applies on a sale of intoxicating liquors to a minor by a clerk, to the statutory presumption of knowledge as to the age of the purchaser. True, the language of that statute was, that the dealer in intoxicating liquors should
The same view was taken in Zigler v. Com’th, (Pa.), 12 Cent. Rep. 497, 14 Alt. 237, cited in the note to Williams v. Hendricks, supra, which was a prosecution for willfully furnishing liquor to persons of known intemperate habits, in which it was alleged that the liquor was furnished by a clerk without authority. The decision in that case was based upon the principle, that in misdemeanors there are no accessories, but all are implicated as principals, and that the question of agency had nothing to do with the case.
In State v. Denoon, 31 W. Va. 122, 5 S. E. 315, a druggist was held to be liable and was fined for a sale by his clerk, without his knowledge, and- contrary to. his instructions, the prosecution in that case being under a statute providing, that “no person without a State license therefor shall * * * sell, offer or expose for sale spirituous liquors, wines, porter, ale, or beer, or any drink of like natureand there, as in the case before us, it was contended that, as the sale was shown to have been made, not by the accused, but by his clerk, without his knowledge and contrary to his directions, he was wholly innocent of any wrong intent or purpose to violate the law, and therefore innocent of any offense. The court, in an opinion by Snyder, J., carefully considered the question and reached the conclusion above mentioned. In the opinion it is said: “The authorities are numerous to the effect that when statutes prohibit or command an act to be done without qualification, in such cases ignorance or mistake of fact will not excuse their violation. This is peculiarly the case in regard to statutes respecting revenue and police matters, for the mere violation of which, irrespective of the motives or knowledge of the party, certain penalties are enacted; for the law in these cases seems to bind the party to know the facts and to obey the law at his
In the case from which we have just made quotations, as in the case at bar, it was not questioned that the liquor sold was the property of the defendant; that the clerk who sold it was the agent of the defendant and as such authorized to sell the
We quite agree with the view taken by the learned attorney general in his argument of this case, that the cases which hold that a principal is bound for the acts of his agent, done not only without his authority, but in violation of his instructions in the making of the sale of ardent spirits, constitute an exception to the general rule, that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to criminal cases; and that the doctrine is based upon the postulate, that a man who engages in this business as a licensee of the State, engages in it at his peril, must see to it
If this be not the correct doctrine, then the statute we have now under review would prove a dead letter, and the evil— namely, the sale of ardent spirits to persons already intoxicated —would not and could not be removed. Any other view of this remedial statute would leave the way open for the vendors of ardent spirits to make the sale prohibited without fear of punishment; moreover, if a barkeeper could shield himself behind the claim that he was ignorant of the illegal acts of his clerk or agent in the sale of ardent spirits, violations of the prohibited acts by his tacit connivance wotdd, without doubt, be increased rather than diminished, and thus render farcical all efforts to suppress the evil at which the statute is aimed.
We fully concur in the view taken in the cases and by the texfrwriter cited above, that intention is not a necessary element in the offense of an illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, and that such a sale, whether made by the principal or by his clerk or agent, is all that is necessary to be proved in order to make orrt the offense; provided only that the sale be made by the clerk or agent in the conduct of the business with which he was charged by the principal, as proved in this case.
The statute is clearly broad enough to hold the master responsible for all acts of his employee, whether authorized or permitted by him or not, under the exception to the general rule as stated in 23 Oyc. 207, relied on by the defendant.
We are of opinion, therefore, that the judgment of the circuit court is right, and it is affirmed.
Affirmed.