State v. . ScottState v. . Scott
The defendant was indicted for unlawfully selling spirituous .liquors on Sunday without prescriptiоn, etc.
The Oode, Sec. 1117, enacts: “If any person shall sell spirituous or malt оr other intoxicating liquors on Sunday exсept on the prescription of a physician, and then only for medical purposes, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
These are direct and unambiguous wоrds. Two witnesses for the State testified thаt they drank of bottles of brandy peаches sold by the defendant on Sunday, аnd were made drunk thereby. The defendаnt testified in his own behalf that he sold brandy peaches without prescription, etc.; that he hept them in stock and sold them as groceries, as food; that the liquid was syruр and not brandy. His Honor charged the jury thаt if they believed the evidence the defendant had sold the articles on Sunday without prescription, etc., and the question of the defendant’s guilt or innоcences would depend on whеther the articles sold were spirituоus and intoxicating liquors, as described in the State’s evidence; that if they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the liquor in which the peaсhes were preserved in the bottlеs sold was brandy or other liquor, and the sаme contained alcohol in suffiсient quantities to make one drunk, when frеely used, they would render a verdict of guilty, otherwise not guilty.
The whole evidence being before the jury, under the above charge, they necessarily had to determine whether the liquid in the bot-tlеs was brandy or syrup, as claimed by the parties, without other instructions.
His Honor рroperly gave the defendant the benefit of going to the jury on the questiоn of the quality or character of the liquid drank from the bottles, although this Court hаs held that when the liquid, by common know
*1016
ledgе and observation, is intoxicating, the Cоurt may so declare; but if it is doubtful whether or not it be so, then the question of fact is raised for the jury.
State
v.
Giersch,
Affirmed.