{
  "id": 8727387,
  "name": "Ramsey vs. The State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ramsey v. State",
  "decision_date": "1850-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "35",
  "last_page": "38",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 Ark. 35"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 8047,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.600952024616107
    },
    "sha256": "1fce9bee1525ac074b872e4edee2a516a24b33917b1cb0dc07e62bd53d323bd0",
    "simhash": "1:34c7c637b954bf8f",
    "word_count": 1374
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:09:57.742091+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ramsey vs. The State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Chief Justice Johnson\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe indictment is drawn with technical accuracy and in strict accordance with the statute. The testimony is wholly insufficient to support the verdict and judgment. The party is indicted for keeping a grocery for the retail of ardent spirits by quantities less than one quart, without first having obtained a license from the county court of Newton county, authorizing him to exercise the privilege of a grocery-keeper. To constitute the offence charged, it is not sufficient that the defendant should have sold ardent spirits in quantities less than one quart, but it is equally necessary, and indeed indispensable, that he should have kept a grocery for that purpose. There is no evidence in the record to establish that essential point. The witness, who testified in relation to the sale of the spirits, expressly stated that he did not know whether the defendant ever kept a grocery or not.\nThe first instruction, asked by the defendant, was improperly refused. The instruction asked was, that, unless the jury should find, from the evidence, that the defendant did keep a grocery, they must find for the defendant. This was strictly appropriate, and consequently should have been given in charge to the jury. The second was properly refused. This was, \u201c That the offence consisted in keeping the grocery, and not in selling liquors in less quantities than a quart.\u201d It is not the mere act of keeping a grocery, but the further act of selling vinous or ardent spirits in quantities less than one quart, and that without having first obtained license for that purpose. The third is, that, before the plaintiff could recover, she must prove that the defendant did keep a grocery, without first having obtained a license from the county court for that purpose. It is not sufficient that the party kept a grocery without first having- obtained a license for that purpose; but he must have kept it for the sale of ardent spirits. The instruction, therefore, was not co-extensive with the charge, and, consequently, should not have been given. The substance of the fourth is, that the jury could not convict, unless they were satisfied, from the evidence, that the defendant kept a grocery. This was essential to constitute the offence, and, consequently, should have been given.\nThe first instruction asked by the State is, that, if they believed, from the evidence, that the defendant kept ardent spirits in any house, for retail, by quantities less than one quart without a license, they must find him guilty. This was improperly given by the court. The term \u201cgrocery,\u201d is an essential part of the description of the offence, and, in the absence of proof upon that point, the charge is not made out, and consequently a conviction would be unauthorized. The second instruction asked by the State was improperly given for the same reason. The Legislature have not seen proper to prohibit the sale of spirits in private houses. The allegation is. that the defendant kept a grocery. This is an essential part of the description of the crime and must be established by the proof in order to warrant a conviction.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Newton county, herein rendered, must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to proceed therein according to law and not inconsistent with this opinion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Chief Justice Johnson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Byers & Patterson, for the appellant.",
      "Clendenin, Alto. Gen., contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ramsey vs. The State.\nTo constitute the offence prohibited by sec. 2, ch. 159, Dig., it is not sufficient that de* fendantsold ardent spirits in quantities less than one quart, without license; but it is necessary that he should have kept a grocery for that purpose.\nIt is not the mere act of keeping a grocery, but the further act of selling spirits in quantities less than one quart, without license, that constitutes the offence.\nIt is not sufficient that defendant kept a grocery without license, hut he must have kept it for the purpose of selling ardent spirits.\nTo constitute the offence, the party must keep a grocery, &c.; keeping spirits for sale in private houses, is not within the prohibition.\nAppeal from the Newton Circuit Court,\nRamsey was indicted in the Newton Circuit Court, as follows:\n\u201c The Grand Jurors, &c., &c., present that Benjamin Ramsey, on the first day of April, A.D. 1848, at, &c., did then and there keep a grocery for the retail of ardent spirits by quantities less than one quart, without first having obtained a license from the county court of said county, authorizing him to exercise the privilege of grocery-keeper, contrary to the form of the statute,\u201d &c., &c.\nThe defendant was tried on the plea of not guilty, at September term, 1849, before the Hon. Wm. W. Floyd, Judge, convicted and fined one dollar. He moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted, took a bill of exceptions, setting out the evidence, &c.\nOn the trial, plaintiff proved, by John Gecil, that he saw defendant sell spirituous liquors in quantities less than one quart, and receive pay therefor. That he purchased liquor himself of defendant, but did not know whose liquor it was \u2014 did not know whether defendant ever kept a grocery or not, \u2014 he had goods and also whiskey in the house, but witness did not know for what purpose, nor by whom the house was kept. He purchased said liquor about the last of March or first of April, 1848, at Martin Tackett\u2019s store-house in Newton county, and that defendant seemed to have entire control of the house. The clerk of the court, introduced by defendant, testified that he did not know whether defendant had license or not \u2014 that he was not about the office during the time when the defendant was charged to have sold liquor, but was, at the time of the trial, clerk and keeper of the record.\nMartin Tackett, witness for defendant, testified that he knew defendant\u2019s occupation about tire time alleged in the indictment: that he was about home all the time defendant was doing business at his house, and that he never did keep a grocery. That defendant was selling goods at that time, and did not own a drop of liquor, and did not keep a grocery, to his knowledge. Defendant\u2019s business was selling goods; and that the house where defendant was charged to have committed the offence, belonged to witness, and was on his premises \u2014 that there was liquor in the house, but that it belonged to witness. He never saw defendant sell liquor in any quantities whatever.\nTwo other witnesses testified that defendant kept a store, and not a grocery, at the house of Martin Tackett.\nDefendant asked the court to charge the jury as follows :\n\u201c 1. That, finless they find, from the testimony, that defendant did keep a grocery, they must find for the defendant.\n\u201c 2. That the offence consisted in keeping the grocery, and not in selling liquors in less quantities than a quart.\n\u201c 3. That, before the plaintiff can recover, she must prove that defendant did keep a grocery without first having obtained a license from the county court for that purpose.\n\u201c 4. If the jury find, from the.proof, that Ramsey kept a house for a store for the retail of dry goods, and not a grocery for the retail of liquor in quantities less than a quart, they must acquit.\u201d\nWhich instructions the court refused to give.\nThe State\u2019s Attorney asked the following instructions :\n\u201c l. That if the jury believe, from the evidence before them, that the defendant kept ardent spirits, in any house, for retail by quantities less than one quart, without a license, they must find the defendant guilty.\n\u201c 2. If the jury believe that the spirits was kept in the house of defendant, and retailed by him, it is wholly immaterial as to whose liquor it was.\u201d\n'Which instructions the court gave.\nByers & Patterson, for the appellant.\nThe court below erred in refusing to give the instructions asked by the defendant, in giving the instructions asked by the State, and in overruling the motion for a new trial. See Hensley'vs. The State, 1 Eng. Rep. 252.\nClendenin, Alto. Gen., contra.\nNote. \u2014 But see Hensley vs. Slate, 1 Eng. R. 252. Reporter."
  },
  "file_name": "0035-01",
  "first_page_order": 35,
  "last_page_order": 38
}