DECISIONS CRIMINAL CASES IN THE STATE OF NEW-YORK. SUPREME COURT. Monroe General Term, March, 1855. Johnson, Welles and T. R. Strong, Justices. THE PEOPLE v. JOSEPH WHEELOCK. The word "beer," in its ordinary sense, denotes a beverage which is intoxicating, and is within the meaning of the words "strong and spiritous liquors," as used in the Revised Statutes. แ Where the indictment charged the sale of "strong and spiritous liquors" without license, and, among other liquors, one pint of strong beer," and the proof, without further explanation, was, that the defendant sold "Dutch beer," it was held that the variance was immaterial. THIS case came before the court on return to a writ of certiorari to the Court of Sessions of Livingston county. The indictment was as follows: State of New-York, Livingston County, ss: The jurors of the people of the State of New-York, and for the body of the county of Livingston, then and there. being sworn and charged to inquire for the people of the said state and for the body of the said county of Livingston, on their oath present: That Joseph Wheelock, of the town of Leicester, in the county of Livingston, on the sixteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight PAR.-VOL. III. 2 The People v. Wheelock. hundred and fifty-four, and at divers other times between that day and the day of the finding of this inquisition, at the town of Leicester, in the said county of Livingston, did sell to divers individuals, to wit, Harmon Parish, Hiram Willis, Norman Green, Nelson Willis, and to divers other persons, strong and spiritous liquors in quantities less than five gallons, to wit, one pint of whiskey, one pint of rum, one pint of gin, one pint of brandy, one pint of wine and one pint of strong beer, to each of the above named individuals, without license therefor, contrary to the provisions of the ninth title of the twentieth chapter of the first part of the Revised Statutes of the State of New-York, and against the peace of the people of the State of New-York and their dignity. And the jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do further present: That the said Joseph Wheelock, on the sixteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, and at divers other times between that day and the finding of this inquisition, at the town of Leicester, in the said county of Livingston, did sell to certain individuals, to wit, to Harmon Parish, Hiram Willis, Norman Green, Nelson Willis, and to divers other persons, strong and spiritous liquors and wines, to wit, one pint of whiskey, one pint of rum, one pint of gin, one pint of brandy, one pint of wine and one pint of strong beer, to each of the above mentioned persons, to be drank in the house, and in the shop, and in a certain out-house, and in a certain yard, and in a certain garden appertaining thereto, without having obtained a license therefor as a tavern keeper, contrary to the provisions of the ninth title of the twentieth chapter of the first part of the Revised Statutes of the State of NewYork, and against the peace of the people of the said state and their dignity. And the jurors aforesaid, on their oath. aforesaid, do further present: That the said Joseph Wheelock, on the sixteenth day of January in the year last aforesaid, and at divers other times between that day and the day of the finding of this inquisition, at the town and in the county The People v. Wheelock. last aforesaid, did sell and cause to be sold to divers individuals, to wit, to Harmon Parish, Hiram Willis, Norman Green, Nelson Willis, and to divers other persons, strong and spiritous liquors and wines, to wit, one pint of whiskey, one pint of rum, one pint of gin, one pint of brandy, one pint of wine and one pint of strong beer, to each of the said persons, and did then and there suffer the said liquors and wines so sold and caused to be sold by him as aforesaid to be drank in his house, and in his shop, and in a certain out-house, and in a certain yard, and in a certain garden appertaining thereto, without having obtained any license therefor as a tavern keeper, contrary to the provisions of the ninth title of the twentieth chapter of the first part of the Revised Statutes of the State of New-York, and against the peace of the people of the said state and their dignity. JAMES WOOD, Jr., The defendant having plead not guilty, the issue came on to trial in the county sessions of Livingston county, before Scott Lord, county judge, and the justices of the sessions, with a jury, and it was proved, on behalf of the people: That on the 16th day of January, 1854, the defendant sold one glass of beer called Dutch beer, and received pay therefor from one Henry Parish. The witness stated that he did not know what kind of beer it was; there was a difference in beer. The district attorney asked the witness if it was. intoxicating liquor. The defendant's counsel objected to the question on the ground that it called for the opinion of the witness. The court overruled the objection, and the counsel for defendant excepted. The witness answered that it was, if one drank enough of it. The witness further stated that he bought one glass of Dutch beer of defendant on the 16th day of January, 1854, and paid him for it. The district attorney offered to prove by the witness that defendant sold |