{
  "id": 1310218,
  "name": "Mascowitz v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mascowitz v. State",
  "decision_date": "1887-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "170",
  "last_page": "172",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "49 Ark. 170"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 3018,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.669,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.283918875943867e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7854822810132946
    },
    "sha256": "6a9ad2cb8a4f08f317b303635672aeecbf36a0f19783618c0931f633deb2567f",
    "simhash": "1:be36044f3a856b4e",
    "word_count": 545
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:47:45.121553+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mascowitz v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Cockriix, C. J.\nThe appellant was indicted for selling liquor to a minor without the consent of his parent or guardian. The proof showed that the minor\u2019s father sometimes visited the appellant\u2019s saloon, and on one occasion when the appellant refused to let his son have beer on account of his nonage, the father believing that his son, who was about nineteen years of age, would not become a drunkard, wrote and delivered to the appellant, on the spot, the following, order: \u201c Mr. Mascowitz: Please let my son John have anything in reason or a drink when he wants it, and oblige a friend,\n[Signed] \u201c M. P. Harrison.\u201d\nThe appellant sold the young man drinks from time to time upon the authority of the order, and on one occasion sold him a pint flask of whisky. He was convicted and appealed.\nThe order was a continuing \u00e1uthority to sell to the minor. It was evidently so intended by the father, and had not been revoked when the liquor was sold. It was not the province of the court to declare as a matter of law that a pint of whisky was not a quantity within reason for a youth to have ; and the Judge, acting in the capacity of a jury, was not authorized to so conclude in this case. The statute vested the right in the father to determine whether his minor child should be allowed to buy liquor without inculpating the seller, and he could, by his written consent, remove the law\u2019s prohibition against a sale to his son. Mansf. Dig., sec. 1878. An order given to authorize a sale of liquor should be co'nstrued as liberally in a criminal prosecution as it would be in an action to test the maker\u2019s civil liability. The order offered in this case would be sufficient to render the maker liable (if there was nothing else to prevent), for any quantity of liquor ordinarily sold to a customer at retail, by the person to whom it was addressed.\nIt was sufficient to justify the appellant in making the sales proved, and he should have been acquitted.\nReverse the judgment and remand the cause.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Cockriix, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. Leathennan for appellant.",
      "Dan W. Jones, Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mascowitz v. State.\nLIQUORS: Sale io minor on order of parent.\nUnder section 1878, Mansfield\u2019s Digest, a written order given by a minor\u2019s father to a saloon keeper, directing the latter to let the minor \u201c have anything in reason or a drink when he wants it,\u201d is, until revoked, a continuing authority to sell to the minor any quantity of liquor ordinarily sold at retail, by the person to whom it was addressed.\nAPPEAL from Garland Circuit Court.\nJ. B. Wood, Judge.\nL. Leathennan for appellant.\nTo constitute the offense charged the sale must have been made without the written consent of the parent. Sec. 1878, Mansf. Dig.\nThe written order in this case was a complete defence. The wording of the order shows that it contemplates the selling on more than one occasion, and is broad enough to include a sale of a pint, or any amount \u201cin reason.\u201d\nDan W. Jones, Attorney General, for appellee.\nThe order was only a consent to sell on the date of the writing.\nEach sale must be authorized by the written consent of the parent."
  },
  "file_name": "0170-01",
  "first_page_order": 178,
  "last_page_order": 180
}