The particular kind of liquor sold need not be described in the indictment. Buell r. State, 72 Ind. 523.

Persons not present at, or having knowledge of, or authorizing the sale, can not be held liable. Hipp v. State, 5 Blkf. 149.

2189. (2093.) Selling liquor to habitual drunkard.-186. Whoever, directly or indirectly, sells, barters, or gives away any spirituous, vinous, malt or other intoxicating liquor to any person who is in the habit of being intoxicated, after notice shall have been given him, in writing, by any citizen of the township or ward wherein such person resides, that such person is in the habit of being intoxicated, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars nor less than fifty dollars, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year nor less than thirty days, and disfranchised and rendered in capable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period.

This section is constitutional. Farrell v. State, 45 Ind. 371.

For decisions construing a similar section in force prior to the taking effect of this section, see Farrell v. State, 45 Ind. 371; Zeizer v. State, 47 Ind. 129; Allison v. State, 47 Ind. 140; Deveny v. State, 47 Ind. 208; Williams v. State, 48 Ind. 306; Wireter t. State, 69 Ind. 269.

It should be alleged that the quantity sold was less than a quart. State v. Zeitler, 63 Ind. 441. See Brow v. State, 103 Ind. 133.

In charging a sale to a person in the habit of being intoxicated after being notified that the person is in the habit of being in such condition, the indictment must aver that the defendant received the notice. State v. Smith, 122 Ind. 178.

On the charge of selling to a person in the habit of being intoxicated, it must be alleged and proven that the defendant was notified in writing before the sale that such person was in the habit of being intoxicated. Garaghty v. State, 110 Ind. 103; State v. Smith, 122 Ind. 178.

Any citizen of a township, where the person resides who is in the habit of being intoxicated, may give the notice required by this section, although such citizen resides in the ward of a city. Dolan v. State, 122 Ind. 141.

If the notice is given by a married woman, it must be alleged that she is a citizen of the township, it not being sufficient to allege that her husband is such a citizen. Engle v. State, 97 Ind. 122.

It must be proven that the person stated in the notice to be in the habit of being intoxicated had such a habit in order to justify a conviction. Miller v. State, 107 Ind. 152.

Proof of a sale will not sustain a charge of giving intoxicating liquors to a person in the habit of being intoxicated. Harvey v. State, 80 Ind. 142.

2190. (2094.) Selling liquor to minor.-187. Whoever, directly or indirectly, sells, barters, or gives away any spirituous, vinous, malt, or other intoxicating liquors to any person under the age of twentyone years shall be fined in any sum not more than one hundred dollars nor less than twenty dollars.

This section is constitutional. Allen v. State, 52 Ind. 486; State v. Mulhisen, 69 Ind.

145.

It is not necessary to allege that the seller knew the minor to be under twenty-one years of age. Ward v. State, 48 Ind. 289.

It is sufficient to charge a sale of intoxicating liquor without describing the particular kind. State v. Hannum, 53 Ind. 335.

The age of the minor need not be stated if he is alleged to be under twenty-one years of age. Brinkman v. State, 57 Ind. 76; Shaffer v. State, 106 Ind. 319.

An indictment for selling intoxicating liquors to a minor need not aver that the seller had, or had not, a license. Johnson v. State, 74 Ind. 197; State v. Hamilton, 75 Ind. 238.

An indictment charging a bartering of intoxicating liquors for an article need not state the value of such article. Forkner v. State, 95 Ind. 406.

It is unlawful to sell any quantity of intoxicating liquor to a minor to be used as a beverage. Payne v. State, 74 Ind. 203. See Manvelle v. State, 58 Ind. 63.

It is no defense to a charge of sales to minors that the sales were authorized by the parents of the minors. State v. Clottu, 33 Ind. 409.

The statement of a child that the liquors are purchased for the parent of the child is no defense. Holmes v. State, 88 Ind. 145.

Proof of a sale directly or indirectly will support a charge of selling to a minor. Hunter v. State, 101 Ind. 241.

If one person purchases liquors, and at his instance the seller delivers a portion of the liquor to a minor, the purchaser and seller are both liable under this section. Topper v. State, 118 Ind. 110.

A sale of intoxicating liquors in good faith and with due caution to minors for medical purposes is not unlawful. Ball v. State, 50 Ind. 595; Payne v. State, 74 Ind. 203. On a charge of selling liquors to minors the defendant may show as a defense that he acted in good faith, believing the minor to be of lawful age, and that he used reasonable precautions to ascertain the facts. Goetz v. State, 41 Ind. 162; State v. Kalb, 14 Ind. 403; Farbach v. State, 24 Ind. 77; Rineman v. State, 24 Ind. 80; Brown v. State, 24 Ind. 113; Robinus v. State, 63 Ind. 235; Holmes v. State, 88 Ind. 145; Hunter v. State, 101 Ind. 241; Kreamer v. State, 106 Ind. 192; Mulreed v. State, 107 Ind. 62; Ross v. State, 116 Ind. 495.

The appearance of a person as seen by the evidence in determining his age. Thinger v. Ind. 235; Bird v. State, 104 Ind. 384.

court or jury can not be considered as State, 53 Ind. 251; Robinus v. State, 63

Persons who are personally acquainted with another may, after giving a description of their personal appearance, give an opinion as to their age. Benson v. McFadden, 50 Ind. 431.

The seller can not rely solely on the statement of a minor as to his age. Goetz v. State, 41 Ind. 162.

The fact that a person has a beard is no criterion to determine his age. Goetz v. State, 41 Ind. 162.

On trial of a charge of giving intoxicating liquors to a minor proof of a sale will not sustain the charge. Kurz v. State, 79 Ind. 488; Harvey v. State, 80 Ind. 142. Proof of a barter or exchange will not sustain a charge of selling. Massey v. State, 74 Ind. 368.

2191. (2095.) Misrepresenting age, to obtain liquor.-188. Whoever, being over the age of fourteen years and under the age of twenty-one years, shall misrepresent his age, and state that he is over twenty-one years of age, in order to purchase or procure spirituous, vinous, malt, or other intoxicating liquors, shall be fined in any sum not more than one hundred dollars nor less than ten dollars.

2192. (2096.) Furnishing liquor to prisoners.-189. Whoever furnishes to a person confined in any jail, work-house, or other lawful place of confinement, any spirituous, vinous, malt, or other intoxicat

ing liquors; or, having charge of a jail, work-house, or other lawful place of confinement, knowingly permits a prisoner confined therein to receive any such liquor, except the same be prescribed by a physi cian as medicine for such prisoner,-shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars nor less than twenty dollars.

See section 8229.

2193. (2097.) Keeping disorderly liquor shop.-169. Whoever keeps a place where intoxicating liquors are sold, bartered, given away, or suffered to be drunk in a disorderly manner, to the annoyance or injury of any part of the citizens of this state, shall be fined, for every day the same is so kept, not more than one hundred dollars nor less than ten dollars.

The legislature has power to declare the keeping of disorderly liquor houses a public nuisance. McLaughlin v. State, 45 Ind. 338; O'Kane v. State, 69 Ind. 183.

Section 17 of the act of 1875, relating to the keeping of places where liquors are sold in a disorderly manner, applies to licensed and unlicensed dealers, and superseded former statutes on that subject. Douglass v. State, 72 Ind. 385. See Brubaker v. State, 89 Ind. 577.

In charging the keeping of a place where liquors are sold in a disorderly manner, it is sufficient to follow the language of the statute. Skinner v. State, 120 Ind. 127; State v. Board, 123 Ind. 34.

Indictments for conducting a business in a disorderly manner must show that some of the citizens of the state were annoyed or injured by such disorder. Mains v. State, 42 Ind. 327; Moses v. State, 58 Ind. 185; State v. Houck, 73 Ind. 37.

An indictment for keeping a place where liquors are sold in a disorderly manner, should specify the character of the disorder. Leary v. State, 39 Ind. 544; Hoseat. State, 47 Ind. 180.

Persons who keep places where intoxicating liquors are sold in a disorderly manner are liable for maintaining a public nuisance. Bloomhuff v. State, 8 Blkf. 205; State v. Mulliken, 8 Blkf. 260; Huber v. State, 25 Ind. 175; Fletcher v. State, 54 Ind. 462; Douglass v. State, 72 Ind. 385.

When it is averred that the defendant has a license to sell intoxicating liquors the fact must be proven. Davis v. State, 52 Ind. 488; Brubaker v. State, 89 Ind. 577.

Proof of disorder in one instance will not sustain a charge of keeping a house in a disorderly manner. Overman v. State, 88 Ind. 6.

Proof that the persons annoyed by the disorder resided near the place of the disorder, will justify the inference that they are citizens of the state. Skinner v. State. 120 Ind. 127.

The keeping of a disorderly house is a continuous offense, and a prosecution covers all the time prior to the commencement of the action. Nace v. State, 117 Ind. 114. When the least fine that can be assessed under this section exceeds the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace he has no jurisdiction over the offense. Nace v. State, 117 Ind. 114.

2194. (2098.) Selling liquor on Sunday, etc.-190. Whoever shall sell, barter, or give away to be drunk as a beverage, any spirituous. vinous, malt or other intoxicating liquor, upon Sunday, the fourth day of July, the first day of January, the twenty-fifth day of December (commonly called Christmas day), Thanksgiving day as designated by proclamation of the governor of this state or the President of the United States, or any legal holiday; or upon the day of any elec

tion in the township, town, or city where the same may be holden; or between the hours of eleven o'clock P. M. and five o'clock A. M.,shall be fined in any sum not more than fifty dollars nor less than ten dollars, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not more than sixty days nor less than ten days.

An indictment for selling liquors on Sunday must charge that the liquors were sold to be drank as a beverage. Morel v. State, 89 Ind. 275; Dowdell v. State, 58 Ind. 333. Indictments for selling liquors on Sunday should state the date of the sale. Clark v. State, 34 Ind. 436; State v. Land, 42 Ind. 311; Ruge v. State, 62 Ind. 388.

The indictment should allege that the day on which the sale was made was commonly called Sunday, giving a date which was Sunday being insufficient. Gilbert v. State, 81 Ind. 565.

If it is alleged that the date given is Sunday, the indictment will be good though such date is not Sunday. Roy v. State, 91 Ind. 417.

Stating that a sale was made on a Sunday, "on or about" a given date, is insufficient. Effinger v. State, 47 Ind. 235.

The sale need not be proven to have been made on the particular Sunday alleged, but may be proven to have been on any Sunday not barred by the statute of limitations. Pancake v. State, 81 Ind. 93; Buckner v. State, 56 Ind. 207.

If the liquors sold on Sunday are ordinarily used as a beverage, it may be inferred that they were sold for such purpose. Morel v. State, 89 Ind. 275.

Prosecutions for selling intoxicating liquors on Sunday may be commenced within two years after the commission of the offense. Shepler v. State, 114 Ind. 194.

On a charge of a sale of intoxicating liquors there must be proof that the liquors were intoxicating, unless the court takes judicial knowledge thereof, or the liquors are such as the statute declares to be intoxicating. Josephdaffer v. State, 32 Ind. 402; Weis v. State, 33 Ind. 204; Plunkett v. State, 69 Ind. 68; Kurz v. State, 79 Ind. 488; Myers v. State, 93 Ind. 251; Fenton v. State, 100 Ind. 598; Welsh v. State, 126 Ind. 71.

Courts judicially take notice that whisky, ale, brandy, beer and all malt liquors are intoxicating. Carmon v. State, 18 Ind. 450; Eagan v. State, 53 Ind. 162; Schlicht v. State, 56 Ind. 173; Wiles v. State, 33 Ind. 206; Shaw v. State, 56 Ind. 188; Myers v. State, 93 Ind. 251; Fenton v. State, 100 Ind. 598.

As to the formation of clubs, purchase and distribution of liquors to avoid the statute prohibiting sales on Sunday, see Marmont v. State, 48 Ind. 21.

An indictment for selling liquors on an election day should name the township in which the sale was made and the election held. State v. Weaver, 83 Ind. 542.

Selling intoxicating liquors on the day of a primary election is prohibited by this section. State v. Christman, 67 Ind. 328; State v. Hirsch, 125 Ind. 207.

It is unlawful to sell intoxicating liquors on the day of any general or special city election. State v. Kidd, 74 Ind. 554; Qualter v. State, 120 Ind. 92.

The statute prohibiting the sale of liquors between certain hours is constitutional, and applies to licensed sellers. Hunter v. State, 101 Ind. 241.

Courts judicially know that between the hours of eleven o'clock P. M. and five o'clock A. M. means from eleven o'clock at night to five o'clock the next morning. Hedderick v. State, 101 Ind. 564.

When different sales on the same day constitute separate offenses, and the evidence discloses more than one sale, the state will be required to elect which sale to rely upon. Lebkovitz v. State, 113 Ind. 26.

2195. (2099.) Druggist selling liquor on Sunday, etc.-191. It shall be unlawful for any druggist or druggist's clerk to sell, barter, or give away any spirituous vinous, malt or other intoxicating liquor

on Sunday; or upon the fourth day of July, the first day of January, the twenty-fifth day of December (commonly called Christmas), Thanksgiving day, or any legal holiday; or upon the day of any state, county, township, primary, or municipal election in the township, town or city where the same may be holden; or between the hours of eleven o'clock P. M. and five o'clock A. M. of any day, unless the persơn, to whom the same is sold, bartered, or given shall have first procured a written prescription therefor from some regularly practicing physician of the county where the same is so sold, bartered, or given away. And a person so offending shall be fined in any sum not more than fifty dollars nor less than ten dollars, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not more than sixty days nor less than ten days.

An indictment under this section charging a sale on Sunday must allege that the day on which the sale was made was Sunday, naming a day of the month that was Sunday not being sufficient. Shepler v. State, 114 Ind. 194.

Druggists can not sell liquors on Sunday without a prescription from a physician, although the liquors may be sold and used for medicinal purposes. Barton v. State, 99 Ind. 89; Tilford v. State, 109 Ind. 359.

The prescription from a physician must be explicit in its terms, and have reference to be filled on Sunday, to justify a druggist in selling liquors on that day. Edwards. State, 121 Ind. 450.

If a druggist is a physician, he can not sell liquors on Sunday without a written prescription. Tilford v. State, 109 Ind. 359.

All sales of liquors on Sunday being presumed illegal, the burden is on the seller to show that he was justified in making the sale. Edwards v. State, 121 Ind. 450. Prosecutions for a violation of this section are not barred until two years after the commission of the offense. Shepler v. State, 114 Ind. 194.

2196. (2100.) Trading near camp-meeting, etc.-192. Whoever sells, or exposes for sale, gives, barters, or in any way disposes of any spirituous, vinous, malt, or other intoxicating liquor, or any article of traffic whatsoever; or shall erect, bring, keep, continue, or maintain any booth, tent, wagon, shed, huckster-shop, or other place for the sale of spirituous, vinous, malt, or other intoxicating liquor, or any other article whatever; or, being the proprietor, owner, or occupant of any real property, shall lease or permit the same to be occupied for any such purpose, at any place within one mile from the place where any religious society or assemblage of people is collected or collecting together for religious worship, or any agricultural fair or exhibition,— shall be fined in any sum not more than fifty dollars nor less than ten dollars, and imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding ten days. But this section shall not be construed to include such persons as may carry on their regular business at their usual places of transacting the same, nor such persons as may own, in fee-simple, the realty within one mile of the places above named, who shall desire to carry on in his or their own persons, the business of providing food for the persons or stock of those attending the places above named; nor to such persons as may have the permission of those having charge of any such meeting or exhibition to establish suitable places for the purpose