Within the meaning of an act prescrib ing the qualifications of the person licensed, the word person is held not to embrace an incorporated club, and the sales of liquor by a bona fide social club with limited mem bership, the property of which is actually owned by its members, and admission to which cannot be obtained by persons at pleas ure, are held not illegal, within the prohibi tion against sales by unlicensed persons ; State v. St. Louis Club, 125 Mo. 308, 28 S. W. 604, 26 L. R. A. 573; State v. Austin Club, 89 Tex. 20, 33 S. W. 113, 30 L. R. A. 500; Piedmont Club v. Com., 87 Va. 540, 12 S. E. 963 ; the general rule seems to be that clubs are not subject to the license laws ; Seim v. State, 55 Md. 566, 39 Am. Rep. 419; L. R. 8 Q. B. Div. 373 ; Com. v. Geary, 146 Mass. 139, 15 N. E. 363; as the furnishing of liquors to the members and their friends at a club house is no more a violation of the law than it would be if such entertainment were given at a private house ; People v. Andrews, 50 Hun 591, 3 N. Y. Supp. 508. In Pennsylvania it is held that in view of the fact that clubs had openly and notoriously furnished liquors to the members thereof for a long period of years before the license law was passed, the supposition is that if the legislature had intended to prohibit the practice, it would have, done so in direct terms; Klein v. Living ston Club, 177 Pa. 224, 35 Atl. 606, 34 L. R. A. 94, 55 Am. St. Rep. 717. But other cases have held that clubs are subject to the license laws ; Marmont v. State, 48 Ind. 21; State v. Neis, 108 N. C. 787, 13 S. E. 225, 12 L. R. A. 412; U. $. v. Alexis Club, 98 Fed. 725; People v. Soule, 74 Mich. 250, 41 N. W. 908, 2 L. R. A. 494 ; People v. Andrews, 115 N. Y. 427, 22 N. E. 358, 6 L. R. A. 128; Rickart v. People, 79 Ill. 85 ; Martin v. State, 59 Ala. 34, where the steward was punished as an unlicensed seller of intoxicating liquor. And they have been required to pay the license tax imposed upon retailers ; Kentucky Club v. City of Louisville, 92 Ky. 309, 17 S. W. 743 ; People v. Soule, 74 Mich. 239, 41 N. W. 908, 2 L. R. A. 494; State v. Boston Club, 45 La. Ann. 585, 12 South. 895, 20 L. R. A. 185; Nogales Club v.. State, 69 Miss. 218, 10 South. 574. Any sale by a club to its members in violation of a prohibition or local option law is illegal ; State v. Easton Club, 73 Md. 97, 20 Atl. 783, 10 L. R. A. 64; State v. Lockyear, 95 N. C. 633, 59 Am. Rep. 287 ; and the club is subjected, to the annulment of its charter; State v. Easton. Club, 73 Md. 97, 20 Atl. 783, 10 L. R. A. 64. Even a bona fide social club cannot sell on Sunday to per sons not members ; Com. v. Loesch, 153 Pa.. 502, 26 Ati. 208.
The steward of a social club which is ruu as a cover for the sale of liquor without license may be punished in the same man ner as the bar-tender of an unlicensed sa loon ; Com. v. Tierney, 148 Pa. 552, 24 Atl. 64.
A physician, carelessly issuing a prescrip tion to an entire stranger without inquiry as to the purpose, may be convicted of selling liquor without a license ; Com. v. Hensel, 34 Pa. C. C. R. 369.
A sale of intoxicating liquor to a habit ual drunkard, after notification from his wife, in violation of a statute making such sale a misdemeanor, is such negligence as to enable the wife to maintain an action for injuries to him resulting from such sale; Riden v. Grimm, 97 Tenn. 220, 36 S. W. 1097, 35 L. R. A. 587. Under the Illinois statutes all who furnish intoxicating liquors which contribute to the habit of drunkenness are liable for injuries resulting from habitual intoxication ; Keller v. Lincoln, 67 III. App.
404; and it was held that a parent had a right of action against a liquor seller and his bondsmen, both for the death of a minor son caused by intoxication resulting from the sale of liquor to him, and also for loss of his services ; Fitzgerald v. Donoher, 48 Neb. 852, 67 N. W. 880. A mother who is injured in her means of support by the death of her son through intoxication may recover from the owner of the premises on which the liq uor was sold, the premises having been leas ed for the purpose of liquor-selling; De Puy v. Cook, 90 Hun 43, 35 N. Y. Supp. 632. See CIVIL DAMAGE ACTS.
Where there are statutory provisions against the sale of liquor to minors, it is no excuse that the vendor is ignorant that the buyer is a minor, even if he attempts to as certain the truth before furnishing the liq uor ; Carlson's License, 127 Pa. 330, 18 Atl. 8; Rick's License, 4 Pa. Dist. Rep. 461; or if the minor made affidavit that he was of age; State v. Sasse, 6 S. D. 212, 60 N. W. 853, 55 Am. St. Rep. 834 ; but it is held that the vendor's knowledge of the purchas er's minority must be shown beyond a rea sonable doubt ; Schurzer v. State (Tex.) 25 S. W. 23. See INTENT.
Where the minor brings a written order from an adult by whom he is employed, the sale is to the adult ; State v. McLain, 49 Mo. App. 398 ; Harley v. State, 127 Ga. 308, 56 S. E. 452; Short v. People, 96 Ill. App. 638; contra, where the order is verbal only ; id.; and the latter is so, even if the minor has been in the habit of bringing bona Aide orders and if be once drink the liquor him self, the sale is to him; Dixon v. State, 89 Ga. 785, 15 S. E. 684. It has even been held that the sale is to the minor when he actual ly delivered the liquor to his employer, where such sale was on a verbal order; Yakel v. State, 30 Tex. App. 391, 17 S. W. 943, 20 S. W. 205; but see Wallace v. State, 54 Ark. 542, 16 S. W. 571, where the sale is held to be to the adult if the minor is known to be doing an errand. The fact that a minor has no parent or guardian to give their written consent will not justify a sale without it; v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 122, 29 S. W. 470 ; the written authority must be special for each occasion, and a general per mit without -limitation is void ; Pressly v. State, 114 Tenn. 534, 86 S. W. 378, 69 L. R. A. 291, 108 Am. St. Rep. 921.
Statutes and ordinances excluding women from employment in saloons or other places where intoxicating liquor is sold have been almost universally sustaihed ; Ex parte Hayes, 98 Cal. 555, 33 Pac. 337, 20 L. R. A. 701; City of Hoboken v. Goodman, 68 N. J.
L. 217, 51 Atl. 1092; Bergman v. Cleveland, 39 Ohio St. 651; State v. Considine, 16 Wash. 358, 47 Pac. 755 ; In re Considine, 83 Fed. 157. See POLICE POWER.
An ordinance prohibiting treating is valid as a reasonable restraint ; City of Tacoma v. Keisel, 68 Wash. 685, 124 Pac. 137, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 757. Serving liquor with meals on Sunday by a hotel-keeper, violates a stat ute against selling or disposing of liquor on Sunday ; Seelbach Hotel Co. v. Com., 135 Ky. 376, 122 • S. W. 190, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 943; Savage v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 199, 88 S. W. 351; serving liquor with meals is a sale; State v. Lotti, 72 Vt. 115, 47 Atl. 392; State v. Wenzel, 72 N. H. 396, 56 Atl. 918 ; Nicrosi v. State, 52 Ala. 336; but see In re Breslin, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 210.