{ "id": 8724365, "name": "Snow v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Snow v. State", "decision_date": "1888-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "557", "last_page": "561", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "50 Ark. 557" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "6 Ark, 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726731 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/6/0131-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Tex., 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex.", "case_ids": [ 2135375 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tex/36/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Mich., 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1309650 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/26/0325-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 469, "char_count": 8092, "ocr_confidence": 0.467, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.577923407858784e-08, "percentile": 0.48867482235450793 }, "sha256": "92d360525ef31529e0df53412fa3600e9aa77f443a1cbc05240b9906eb77e9ba", "simhash": "1:aa0dbaaded569ff7", "word_count": 1417 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:56:08.326499+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Snow v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION.\nCogeeill, C. J.\nPermitting a minor to play pool in a \u201cdram shop or saloon\u201d is a misdemeanor by virtue of the act of February 21st, 1887.\nThere is nothing in the act, nor in the evil it was intended to prevent, to indicate that the words \u201cdram shop\u201d and \u201csaloon\u201d are used as synonymous in meaning. \u2022Neither in accurate signification nor by common acceptation, are they identical in meaning. A dram shop or place where spirituous liquor is sold by the drink, is commonly called a saloon, but the latter word has a much broader meaning. To constitute a saloon, it is not necessary that ardent spirits should be offered for sale, or that it should be a business requiring a license under the revenue laws of the state. Kitson v. Mayor of Ann Arbor, 26 Mich., 325; Goozen v. Phillips, 49 Ib., 7; State v. Mansker, 36 Tex., 364.\nA place where cider, birch beer, ginger ale and like-refreshments are served after the manner of dram shops,, as the proof shows was done in this case, is. a saloon within the letter and spirit of the prohibition of this-statute. The influence of the company which is supposed to frequent such resorts, upon the morals of youths, is what the legislature sought to avert by this act, and the language used embraces the saloon in-the prohibitory as well as the licensed liquor districts.\nThe court\u2019s charge was not unfavorable to the appellant, and the judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Cogeeill, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "G. W. Murphy, for appellant.", "Dan. W. Jones, Attorney General, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Snow v. State.\n3. Salooi\u00ed: What constitutes: Permitting mino?' to play pool in,\nA place where cider, birch beer, ginger ale and like refreshments, are served after the-manner of dram shops, is a \u201csaloon,\u201d within the meaning of the act of February 21, 3887, which makes it a misdemeanor for the keeper of \u201cany dram shop or saloon,\u201d to^ permit a minor to play therein at any game' of \u201cpooh\u201d To constitute such saloon it is not necessary that ardent spirits should be offered for sale, or that it should be a business requiring a license under the revenue laws.\nJ. B. Wood, Judge.\nAPPEAL from Saline Circuit Court.\nSTATEMENT.\nThe appellant was convicted on an indictment which charges, that, being the keeper of a saloon, be wilfully permitted Tilford Hockersmith, a minor, to play therein at a game of pool. The prosecution was under the act of Eebruary 21, 1887, section one of which is as follows:\n\u201cIt shall be unlawful for any owner or keeper of any dram shop or saloon, or any employe of such owner or keeper, to permit minors to play in such dram shop or saloon, or any apartment thereof, at any game of cards, billiards, pool, or any other game, known by any other name, or without any name, for any bet or wager on such game or games, or for amusement without any bet. or wager.\u201d\nSection two provides that a violation of the act shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty dollars, nor more than fifty dollars. The following facts were shown by the evidence :\nThe defendant kept a house in the town of Benton, in which he sold ginger ale, soda pop, birch beer, native wine made from grapes and berries, lemonade, orangeade, blaekberry-ade and cider. He also kept tobacpp,. cigars, oysters, cheese, crackers, jellies, apples, oranges and lemons. The wine was kept and sold by the bottle for the manufacturer, and was not to the knowledge of the defendant durnk in the house. He sold the ginger-ale, birch beer and soda pop by the bottle and they were drunk from glasses which he kept in the house. The cider,i:ofange-ade,- blackberrrv-ade- and lemonade, were sold , by. the glass, and drunk in the house. None of these liquors were intoxicating except the wine. The floor of the room in which these articles were kept was uncarpeted, and it was also without chairs, benches or other means of comfortable .sitting. The defendant owned a billiard table, cues, balls and pins, and kept them in the-rear end of the same room. Persons.were permitted-to play billiards and pool there without charge, \u2014the players'arranging the balls and .pins \u2014 and sometimes cpngregated there in crowds numbering., from six to twelye. The boys ip and around the town frequently. assembled thqre to play pool, and billiards. \u25a0Generally t,he one who lost the game would \u201ctreat\u201d the other;;p.lay.ersv In July, _ 1887, Tilford Hockersmith, & minor,fifteen years of age, played a game of pool on the. defendant\u2019s table in the room mentioned, and in the presppce, of the defendant.\nThemourt gave the :jury, against the objection of the defendant, the following instruction:\nIf you find from the evidence that the defendant kept \u2022a ho\u00fcs\u00bf for the sale of cider, orange-ade, blackberry-ade, lemonade, soda pop, which he sold by the drink, and wine which he sold by the bottle, also kept cheese,\u2019 crackers, oysters, tobacco,- lemons,- cigars and\" such like groceries for sale, also had a -billiard and pool table in the sarde house on which all persons who desired -were permitted to play at pleasure, and. in- which house per-sons who wished to do so did congregate for the purpose' of drinking and playing billiards or pool for pleasure, then you may find that he was a saloon: keeper.\u201d\nThe defendant requested the following instruction which the court refused :\n1. \u201c\"Unless you find from the evidence that the defendant kept for.sale, or sold alcoholic, intoxicating,, ardent,, malt, fermented or vinous liquor, o;ther than .native wine manufactured from grapes or berries, in Saline county, Arkansas, kept or sold by him as the agent of. the manufacturer, you must acquit him,\u201d\nThe defendant also requested the following instructions :\n2. \u201cYou are the judges in this case of whether the defendant was a saloon keeper'or not, and you will determine whether he was such or not from all the evidence in the case. The word \u201csaloon\u201d and the term \u201csaloon keeper,\u201d disconnected from \u201cdram shop\u201d or a saloon where intoxicating liquors are sold by the drink, are not defined by our laws and are not subject to legal definition;\u201d\n3. \u201cThe keeping for sale or selling wine manufactured-in this state, in bottles as the agent-of the manufacturer-, of it, does not constitute the keeper or seller a saloon keeper.\u201d - ,\n4..\u201cUnless you believe from the evidence that the defendant was a saloon keeper at the time of- the playing, of the game of pool by the minor, as charged in the in-, dictment. you should acquit him.\u201d\nThe court gave the third and fourth instructions, but refused to give the second as asked,- and gave it after striking out all except the following :\n\u201cYou are the judges\u2019in this case of whether'the defendant' was a saloon keeper or n\u00f3t, and you will determine whether he was such or not from all the evidence in the. case.\u201d \u2022 \u2022\nA new trial was denied the defendant and he appealed.\nG. W. Murphy, for appellant.\nThe act of February 21, 1887, page 19, in the light of previous legislation was intended to prevent minors from playing pool and other games, in a place where liquors are sold. It was directed at dram shops and saloons where ardent liquors are sold, and not to places such as the evidence shows the appellant kept. See Mansf. Dig., seos. 525-6, 1850, 4516, 4518, 5592, 5596.\nThe act should be construed with reference to previous legislation. 3 Arh., 556; 4 Id., 410; 5 Id., 349.\nThis statute is penal and should be strictly construed. 6 Ark, 131,\nDan. W. Jones, Attorney General, for appellee.\nThe act of February 21st, 1887, makes it a misdemeanor for the owner of a dram shop or saloon to allow a minor to play at a game of pool tor a wager or for amusement in his dram shop or saloon. Acts of 1887, p. 19.\nThe legislature uses the two words \u201cdram shop\u201d and \u201csaloon,\u201d If they mean the same, then they have been guilty of the error of tautology, which we can hardly suppose an intelligent body like the Arkansas legislature to be guilty of.\nDram is defined by Worcester to be \u201csuch a quantity of spirituous liquor as is usually drunk at once.\u201d\nAnd \u201csaloon,\u201d \u201ca place of refreshment.\u201d\nThe legislature is supposed to have used these two words with full comprehension of the meaning; and to have used them in their ordinary and lexicographic-sense. If so, the court\u2019s charge was correct." }, "file_name": "0557-01", "first_page_order": 565, "last_page_order": 569 }