(after stating the case). The enactments in the Revenue Acts of 1885 and 1887, section 34 in the former, and section 31 in the latter, are, in terms, essentially the same *684 in relation to the sale of spirituous liquors, and in requiring a previous license therefor, the differences not affecting the criminal act as a misdemeanor. The former requires the semi-annual payment of the tax, the latter its payment quarterly; and there is a slight change in the form of the exceptions, in that a person in the one case may sell liquors or wines, the product of his own farm or of his own manufacture, at the place of manufacture; and in the latter enactment he may sell v)ines of his own manufacture at the place of manufacture, and wines or spirits, produced from his own farm, in quantities not less than a quart, elsewhere as well.

The finding brings the case within the averments made in the third count and the condemnation of the statute; and its sufficiency, in form, to chai’gethe offence is not controverted, nor the defendant’s criminal responsibility denied, if they are true and supported by the proofs. The only point is as to meaning of the words which permit the selling at the place where the liquors are made, and can this be said of a sale at the defendant’s house, some 200 yards distant from the locality of manufacturing the liquors?

We do not concur in the ruling of the Judge in his construction of the statute. It was not, in our opinion, the purpose of the exception to convert a residence, so far remote, into a liquor-selling store, and thus multiply the evils intended to be remedied, but to authorize the disposition of these intoxicating drinks at the distilleiy, or at places so near as to be used in the business of distilling. If the distance of 200 yards be not too remote, where shall the limit to the privilege be assigned?

That both the residence and distilling operations are upon the same farm can make no difference in fixing the place at which the privilege may be exercised without the payment of the required tax for retailing.

There is error, and the judgment must be'reversed and jugment against the defendant.

Error.