The defendant was indicted in the superior court for the offense of selling spirituous liquors to a minor without having first obtained the authority of the parent or guardian. The indictment was transmitted to the county court, and the defendant was tried there before the judge, without any jury, on both law and fact. The defendant was convicted, and applied for a certiorari on various grounds alleged therein ; the certiorari was refused, and defendant excepted.
1. The first ground of complaint is. that when the grand jury was called by the sheriff it was suggested that there were twenty-four men, and the court, instead of reducing them to twenty-three himself, told them to go to their room, and if there were twenty-four to strike off and excuse the last man, then choose a foreman and return and be qualified. The whole complaint is that the court told the grand jury, before it was organized and sworn, if, on count, there should be twenty-four, ,to reduce itself to the legal number by doing just what he would have done and what the law required to be done, to-wit: striking the last man on the list, the last summoned. We, ,are at a loss to see any error in it or any harm done defendant by it.
2. The next ground is that the county judge, at the close of the testimony before dinner, said he would render his judgment after dinner, but after dinner he reopened the case and heard other evidence. It is not shown that the defendant had witnesses absent after dinner to rebut the additional evidence, or was otherwise hurt. He asked for no continuance, and would have been no better prepared at another time. The facts and the judgment would have been just the same so far as is made to appear. We see no error at all in this proceeding.
3. The third ground is that the facts and law do not make a case for conviction. The facts are that the defendant sold whisky, a spirituous liquor, to the minor; that the minor had no authority from his father, who lived in Atlanta, to buy;
The crime is against society, against youth, against policy, morals, everything good; and the doubt should be very reasonable before the criminal should be allowed to escape unwhipped of justice. Very slight evidence should suffice to prove the negative that a sane parent never gave a dram-seller authority to ruin his son, and thus to shift the onus, if
Judgment affirmed.