
    The State vs. Caswell and Hill.
    Two persons may be jointly guilty, and jointly convicted of the offence of retailing spirits.
    The grand jury of Knox county, at the February term, 1841, of the circuit court for said county, indicted W. R. Caswell and Anderson Hill, for retailing spiritous liquors, contrary to the provisions of the act of 1837-8, ch. 120. The indictment charged, that “William R. Caswell and Anderson Hill, of Knox county, on the 1st day of January, 1841, with force and arms, in the county of Knox, unlawfully did vend and sell, in quantities less than one quart, a certain kind of spiritous liquor, called gin, to one William Swan, for a valuable consideration,” &c.
    At the June term succeeding, on motion of defendants’ counsel, Scott, presiding judge, quashed the indictment, from which Reynolds, attorney general, prayed and obtained an appeal in error to the supreme court, on behalf of the State.
    
      Attorney General, for the State,
    cited 4 Bac. Ab. 321, Dodd’s Ed., Title Indictment. 2 Hawkins ch. 25, sec. 89.
    
      Lyon, for defendants.
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an indictment against the defendants, for retailing spiritous liquors. The judge of the circuit court quashed the bill, because it was against two jointly, upon the ground, that the offence could not be jointly committed. In this, we think, he was mistaken. In minor offences, aiders and abettors are principals: therefore, if one procure the spirits for the purpose of retailing, and hire another to attend to the bar, as his servant, and he retails, both are guilty. To construe the case otherwise, would be to evade the statute, a fine being the only punishment prescribed for retailing, and irresponsible persons could always be procured, upon whom to cast the burden, while the owner, who could make satisfaction to the law, would escape.

Reverse the judgment, and remand the cause.  