
    Cabe 2 — INDICTMENT
    January 9.
    Commonwealth v. Bell.
    APPEAL PROM NICHOLAS CRIMINAL COURT.
    1. Indictment'por selling liquor to an inebriate, under the act of March 6, 1878, must allege that the defendant knew the party, to whom the liquor was sold, to be an inebriate.
    THOS. E. MOSS, attorney-general, por appellant.
    1. It is incumbent on the vendor of spirituous liquors to know that his customer labors under no disability. (Ulrich v. Commonwealth, 6 Bush, 400.)
    2. If the act of March 6,1878 (Acts 1878, vol. 1, p. 81), requires the indictment to use the word “knowingly,” and to charge that the defendant “knowingly,” etc., it changed the law as announced in Ulrich v. Commonwealth, 6 Bush, 400.
    CHAS. L. LYTLE por appellee.
   JUDGE HINES

delivered the opinion of the court.

The failure to allege in the indictment that the appellee knew the party to whom the liquor was sold to be an inebriate, renders it fatally defective. Under the act of March 6, 1878, “ knowingly is made an essential ingredient in the offense, and as it must be established by proof in order to a conviction, it follows that the allegation of knowledge on the part of the accused is essential to the validity of the indictment.

Judgment affirmed.  