{
  "id": 1870991,
  "name": "Johnson v. The State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1881-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "98",
  "last_page": "99",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ark. 98"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 154,
    "char_count": 1961,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6009724891296752
    },
    "sha256": "3ca817c53ddfdd5e1fd1566766f459c7472c4e6c4b6d379833c6c3223c79401d",
    "simhash": "1:98d0166e4cbc41e2",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:17.182005+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Johnson v. The State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hon. E. H. English, C. J.\nAppellant, George Johnson, was convicted on the following indictment, and motion in .arrest of judgment overruled :\nCharge : That George Johnson, on the twenty-fifth day \u25a0of December, 1879, in the county of Franklin, &c., unlawfully did sell to one E. P. Williams, one pint of a certain preparation of ardent liquors commonly called \u201cGranger 'Tonic,\u201d when the owner thereof had not previously thereto procured license from the County Court of said county authorizing the same, &c.\nThis indictment is like that in the State v. Keith, ante 96, which was held bad. It was not alleged that appellant had no license; and if he had he was guilty of no offense, though the owner of the tonic sold had none; and if the owner of the tonic had license and appellant none, he was .guilty of a violation of the statute, unless he sold as the .agent or employee of the owner, and under his license.\nIt is sufficient to charge that the seller has no license, \u2022and unless he has, or sells for some one who is licensed he may be convicted.\nSo if liquor be sold without license, the statute subjects not only the seller but the owner or person interested in the \u2022sale to indictment. Act of Eighth March, 1879, sec. 5.\nEeversed and remanded with instruction to arrest the judgment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hon. E. H. English, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "'O. B. Moore, Attorney General, for appellee:"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Johnson v. The State.\nI. Liquor: Selling with and without License.\nOne having license to sell liquor may sell another\u2019s liquor who has no license, hut one having no license can not sell the liquor of another who has, except as his agent or employee, and under his license; and if neither has licensii, both the seller and owner oi-party interested in the sale, are indictable.\nAPPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court.\n.Hon. W. D. Jacoway, Circuit Judge.\n'O. B. Moore, Attorney General, for appellee:\nIndictment was under sec. 5 of Act of March 8, 1879.\nIn support of the judgment the State relied on the principles of Foster v. State, (Miss.) as applied to the \u25a0evidence. . f"
  },
  "file_name": "0098-01",
  "first_page_order": 96,
  "last_page_order": 97
}