State v. Matthis

CourtListener 7468854ScctappJan 15, 1833

Full text

Johnson, J.
The fact of retailing having been conceded by the defendant, the only question is, whether he can justify under an authority from Weaver; and certainly no individual can authorize another to violate a public law. in addition to this, the circumstances abundantly shew, that the defendant must have known that Weaver had no authority to retail. He was a passing stranger, who had no motive to apply for a license. The defendant would have been culpable, therefore, in aiding him in retailing.

Motion dismissed.

O’Neall, J. concurred.
Harper, J. absent.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.