State v. Rairorf
State v. Rairorf
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The entire record, which is brought up by the writ of error iir this case under the act of 1898 (Pamph. L., p. 915, § 136), shows that an indictment containing three counts for the sale of liquor without license and one count for keeping a disorderly house was found by the grand jury of the county of Salem against the defendant.
To the counts charging the illegal sale of liquor, the defendant pleaded guilty, and not guilty to the.charge of keeping a disorderly house.
The defendant claims that he suffered manifest wrong and injury upon his trial for keeping a disorderly house, for which the judgment against him should be reversed.
The court charged the jury that “if the defendant permitted minors to come there and drink spirituous liquor, then he was guilty of keeping a disorderly house.”
Section 100 of the “Act concerning intoxicating liquors ” (Gen. Stat., p. 1805) provides “that no inn, tavern, hotel, victualing house or saloon keeper, or any other person licensed to sell any strong or spirituous liquors or wines within said city, shall sell or give away any such liquors or wines to any apprentice or to any minor under the age of eighteen years, knowing or having reason to believe him to be such, under a penalty of ten dollars for each offence.”
This provision applies only to licensed dealers in cities and cannot affect the defendant, who was without license.
The sale of liquor without license, whether sold to an adult or a minor, constitutes an offence consisting wholly of
For this error in the charge of the court the judgment must be reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.