
    Williams v. Commonwealth.
    (Decided January 12, 1926.)
    Appeal from Bell Circuit Court.
    1. Intoxicating Liquors — Indictment, Charging Accused with Selling Intoxicating Medicinal Preparation with Knowledge it was Purchased for Beverage Purposes, Sufficient. — Indictment, directly charging accused with having made sale of intoxicating medicinal preparation, with knowledge that it was being purchased for beverage purposes held sufficient.
    2. Intoxicating Liquors — Evidence of Sale of Five Bottles of Bate-man’s Drops, Containing 45 Per Cent Alcohol Carried Case to Jury, and Sustained Conviction. — In prosecution for sale of medicinal preparation containing more than one-half of 1 per cent, of alcohol for beverage purposes, evidence of the sale at one time of five bottles of Bateman’s drops, containing 45 per cent alcohol, warranted submission of case to jury, and sustained conviction.
    3. Intoxicating Liquors — Instruction Fully and Fairly Submitted Elements of Charge of Knowingly Selling Intoxicating Medicinal Preparation for Beverage Purposes. — In prosecution for knowingly selling an intoxicating medicinal preparation containing more than one-half of 1 per cent of alcohol for beverage purposes, instruction held to fully and fairly submit all elements of offense charged.
    M. G. COLSON for appellant.
    FRANK E. DAUGHERTY, Attorney General, and CHARLES F. CREAL, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
   Opinion op the Court by

Commissioner Sandidge

Affirming.

Appellant, George Williams, prosecutes this appeal from a judgment of the Bell circuit court convicting him of knowingly selling a medicinal preparation containing more than one-half of one per cent by volume of alcohol for beverage purposes.

His argument that a demurrer to the indictment should have been .sustained is not supported ibut is refuted by Thompson v. Commonwealth, 202 Ky. 674, cited and relied upon by him. The indictment in all particulars measures up to the opinion of this court in that case in that it directly charged appellant with having made the sale of the intoxicating medicinal preparation with knowledge that it was being purchased for beverage purposes.

Appellant’s contention that tbe trial court erred in not directing his acquittal at the close of the testimony and that the verdict is flagrantly against the evidence can not be sustained. The evidence establishes that appellant, in a single transaction on the occasion in question, sold to the witness, Sillus Roark, five bottles of Bate-man’s drops, which contained forty-five per cent by volume of alcohol. Such a sale at one time is a circumstance from which the seller might reasonably deduce the intention of the purchaser to use it for beverage purposes and evidence of those facts authorized the submission of the case to the jury and sustains the verdict found by it. See Forgy v. Commonwealth, 206 Ky. 591; Hale v. Commonwealth, 206 Ky. 685, and A. L. Sams v. Commonwealth, 212 Ky. 47.

Appellant’s complaint that the instruction given is erroneous is wholly without merit. The instruction required the jury to believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the sale was made within twelve months before the finding of the indictment; that the medicinal preparation known as Bateman’s drops contained more than one-half of one per cent by volume of alcohol, and that appellant knowingly sold it for beverage purposes, or did so under such circumstances as that he might reasonably deduce that it was being purchased for that purpose, before they could find the defendant guilty. The instruction fully and fairly submitted all the elements of the offense charged.

No error occurring upon the trial hereof appearing in the record, the judgment is affirmed.  