Smith v. . Best

Clark, J.: The defendant testified that he knew that B. W. Taylor was a minor; that at the instance of another person, an adult, he furnished at his bar-room said minor and the adult with a drink each of spirituous liquor; that he refused to receive pay from the minor, but received it from the adult. Putting aside the palpable evasion of the law which was thus attempted, the fact remains that the minor, who was unmarried, received and drank spirituous liquor at the hands of the defendant. That he furnished it at the request of, and for a consideration paid by, the adult, makes the “dealer” none the less liable. State v. Wallace, 94 N. C., 827. No one, not even the father of the minor, could have authorized him to furnish the liquor to the minor. State v. Lawrence, 97 N. C., 492. His Plonor properly told the jury, if they believed the testimony, to find the defendant guilty. State v. Scoggins, 107 N. C., 959. The exception to evidence was without merit. The witness was competent to testify to his own age according to the reputation in the family. Abb. Tr. Ev., 87. The indictment was for a sale to B. W. Taylor, Jr., with a second count charging that defendant did “give away” liquor to the same. The witness merely gave his name as B. W. Taylor. There was nothing in the evidence or circumstances tending to show any doubt as to his identity with the person mentioned in-the indictment. This was not a variance. The “Jr.” is no part of the name, but a mere “descrip-tio personse.” It may be observed that the adult who procured the defendant to furnish the liquor to the minor was equally indictable, for though not a “dealer” he was accessory to the violation of the law, and in misdemeanors all accessories are indictable as principals. Per Curiam. No error.