
    The State of Iowa v. Becker.
    1. Indictment: intoxicating liquors : duplicity. An individual, under section 1564, Revision 1860, which charged that in a certain building the defendant kept intoxicating liquors for sale, and did then and there sell the same, does not charge two distinct offenses, and is not bad for duplicity.
    2. - name op purchaser. It is not necessary in such an indictment to set out the name of the person to whom the liquor was sold.
    3. -description op building. In an indictment under section 1564 of the Revision of 1860, against the person, it is not necessary to describe the building and its specific location.
    
      2. Intoxicating liquors ¡ evidence. On the trial of an -indictment under section 1564, Revision 1860, the State is not bound to show affirmatively that the liquors wero not kept in original vessels or packages, and that they were not sold for mechanical, medicinal or sacramental purposes.
    
      Appeal from Des Moines Distñct Cozirt.
    
    Wednesday, June 13.
    •Liquor act : requisites of indictment : evidence. — For necessary statement see opinion. Defendant was convicted, and appeals.
    
      F. F. Bissell, Attorney-General, for tbe State.
    No appearance for defendant.
   Dillon, J.

The defendant was indicted under the eighth section of the prohibitory liquor law, being section 1564 of the Revision.

Decided : First. That an indictment, under said section, which charges that in a certain building the defendant kept intoxicating liquors for sale, and did then and-there sell the same, does not charge two dis-3 tinct offenses, and is not bad for duplicity.

Second. It is not necessary to set Out in the indictment the names of the persons to whom the liquor was sold.

Third. That, as the proceeding under that section is against the person, the building need not be described, and its specific location averred.

Fourth. The State is not bound to show, affirmatively, that the liquors were not kept in original vessels or packages, and that thev were not sold for mechanical, ° ’ J ’ medicinal, or sacramental purposes. These are «pr0per grounds of defense.” Rev., §§ 1559, 1560, 1564, 1569 ; The State v. Guisenhause, ante.

We have not been favored with an argument by tbe appellant. We discover no other questions in tbe record. Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.  