
    Harkey v. The State.
    1. Even if a person indicted for furnishing intoxicating liquors to a minor without written consent of the parent or guardian can defend the charge by showing that he had exercised due diligence to ascertain whether the alleged minor was of full age or not, and as the result of such diligence believed bona fióte that he Was of full age, and acted upon that belief in furnishing the liquors, evidence that the minor appeared to be and told the accused he was over 21 years of age, and made similar representations to various barkeepers, which representations were known to the accused, would not be sufficient to establish due diligence, and for this reason the exclusion of the evidence is not cause for a new trial, no additional evidence tending to show diligence being offered, and the accused in his statement to the court and jury denying ■ that he furnished any liquor to the alleged minor, or that he knew him.
    2. The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no error in denying a new trial.
    July 4, 1892.
    Criminal law. Selling liquor to minor. Before Judge Westmoreland. Criminal court of Atlanta. March term, 1892.
    Conviction of selling liquor to a minor. The special assignment of error is, that the court sustained the objection to the following, questions asked of a witness by the defendant’s counsel: “Is it not true that Dock Thompson [the minor] represented to various persons, barkeepers, that he was over 21 years of age before the time that this offence is alleged to have been committed, and was that not known to the defendant Harkey ? Is it not true that the witness Dock Thompson represented to the defendant Harkey that he was over twenty-one years old at the time of the alleged offence.” Also, that the court refused to allow the defendant to prove that Dock Thompson appeared to be over 21 years old.
    R. J. Jordan and IT. M. O’Bryan, for plaintiff in error.
    Lewis W. Thomas, solicitor, contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed.  