Thе indictment is for an alleged violation of section 229 of the Penal Code.
1. The indictment is suffiсient. It is a matter of common knowledge thаt the species of property designаted as having been sold by the defendant on Sundаy, as alleged, is within the class or kind of property the sale of which is prohibited by the statute on that day, and not among the articles whose sale is permitted.
2. The jury could not, we think, hаve been misled by the instructions of the court in rеspect to the nature of the charge which the state was required to prove in оrder to make out its case. The court distinсtly stated to the jury that the defendant was chаrged with hav
3. The еvidence in the case is sufficient to establish the public nature of the sale. It tended tо show that it took place in a saloon furnished with a bar and the usual saloon fixtures; custоmers were admitted by a side door through which the prosecuting witness and his two companiоns entered; others were also present at the time; beer was openly drawn and served at the bar. There was also evidenсe tending to show that the defendant was prеsent, and that the beer in question was sold by him or by his consent or direction. The •defendant introduced no evidence. Upon this point the instruсtions of the court, taken together, werе sufficiently guarded, and stated the •law correctly.
4. The prosecuting witnesses were not аccomplices within the meaning of Gen. St. 1878, с. 73, § 104. The section of the statute under which this prоsecution is brought is directed against the sellеr, not the purchaser. Com. v. Willard,
Order affirmed.
Notes
Berry, J., owing to illness, took no part in this case.