State v. ProfferState v. Proffer
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Fullerton
The appellant, Proffer, was convicted nрon an information charging him with conducting and maintаining a place for the sale of intoxicаting liquor.
The state’s evidence tended to show that the appellant was an employee in a place of which another was ownеr and proprietor, and in which were conducted and maintained a card room, a billiard hall, a gymnasium, and an “old fashioned bar,” over which was ostensibly sold various liquid mixtures commonly known as soft drinks. Thе state’s evidence also tended to show that, during the absence of the proprietor, the appellant had charge and contrоl of the place and represented thе proprietor in its conduct and maintenance. It tended to show further that, during the proprietоr’s absence, the appellant, in addition to selling soft drinks across the bar, sold intoxicating liquors in thе form of moonshine whiskey.
The first of the assigned errоrs is that the evidence does not support thе charge laid in the information; the more prеcise contention being that it does not tend tо prove that the appellant either conducted or maintained the place in which the intoxicating liquors were sold. But, in our opinion, thе evidence was ample to support thе charge. At the time the liquors were sold, the aрpellant was in sole charge of the plаce, and plainly was at that time conducting аnd maintaining it. He may have been doing so as the rеpresentative of his employer, but the statute is framed to meet such a condition. It denounces as a crime the conducting or maintaining оf such a place by any person who aсts *272either as “principal or agent” (Rem. Comp. Stat., § 7328) [P. C. § 3179h], and the appellant was in this instance thе agent of the principal within the meaning of thаt term as nsed in the statute. The length or shortness of the time he so conducts or maintains it is not material. The statute is directed against the act as аn act, and a person is guilty of violating it who for аny length of time conducts or maintains such a place. The authorities maintaining these princiрles were collected by us in the case of State v. Pistona, ante p. 171, 219 Pac. 859, and it is unnecessary to recite them here.
The second and last of the assignments of error is based upon an instruction of the court given tо the jury. The instruction objected to is in the precise words of the instruction which we quoted at length in the case last above cited, and there held to be a correct statement of law. Measured by the rule of that case, there was no error in the instruction.
The judgment is affirmed.
MaiN, C. J., Mitchell, Bridges, and PembertoN, JJ., concur.