
    Morgan v. The Commonwealth.
    June Term, 1850.
    Indictments—Sale of Ardent Spirits—Charging Offence in Disjunctive'.—In an indictment for retailing ardent spirits without a license, to be drank where sold, it is not error to use the word “or” in speaking of the various kinds of spirituous liquors charged to have been sold.
    At the March term for 1848, of the Circuit court- of Chesterfield county, Peter K. Morgan was indicted, for that he, on the 15th of February 1848, at the county &c., without a license, did sell by retail, to be drank in his house, rum, wine, brandy or other spirituous liquors, to be drank where sold, &c.
    The- defendant demurred to the indictment, on the ground that the charges were laid in the disjunctive: But the Court overruled the demurrer. The defendant then pleaded “not guilty,” and on the trial demurrer to the evidence; and the Commonwealth joined in the demurrer. Whereupon the jury found a verdict of guilty, subject to the demurrer to evidence.
    *The evidence consisted of the testimony of a single witness, who deposed, that on the 15th of February 1848, he and John Perry drank spirits at the house of the defendant; which said spirits were called for by Perry, and by him paid for; the purchase having been made of, and the payment made to, the defendant.
    The Court gave judgment upon the demurrer to evidence, against the defendant, for a fine of 30 dollars and the costs, Whereupon he applied to this Court for a writ of error, which was allowed.
    Day, for the appellant.
    The Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
    
      
      Indictments—Sale of Ardent Spirits—Charging Of-fence in the Disjunctive,—Several cases cite and reaffirm the- proposition of the principal case, that it is not error to charge the offence of selling spirituous liquors, wines, etc., without a license, in the disjunctive instead of the con j unctive, by using the word “or” in lieu of “and” in describing the various kinds of liquors and drinks charged in the indictment to have been sold without a license. See Thomas v. Com., 00 Va. 93, 17 S. E. Rep. 788; Cunningham v. State, 5 W. Va. 509; State v. Charlton, 11W. Va. 336-7. But, in this last case, the court said; “It (l e., the decision of the principal case) ought not to be regarded as overthrowing the general rule, that an indictment ought not to state the case disjunctively, when it is thereby left uncertain, what is really intended to be relied on as the accusation. And while Morgan's Case must govern us whenever a case like 'it arises, yet we cannot safely extend it to cases which differ from it and fall within this general rule.” See, further, monographic mofe on “Indictments, Informations and Presentments” appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674; monographic note on “Intoxicating Liquors" appended to Thon V. Com., 31 Gratt. 887.
    
   By the Court.

The judgment is affirmed.  