
    BACH vs. THE STATE.
    The defendant was indicted under the 31st section of the 8th article of the act concerning “ Crimes and Punishments,” (R. S. 1835,p. 209,) for selling “fermented liquors55 after nine o’clock on Sunday morning, and was found guilty. The evidence was that defendant sold Ale, and some evidence was given tending to show that ale was a fermented liquor: Se Id, That whether ale was a fermented liquor or not was a question for the jury, and it not appearing that the court misdirected the jury in relation to that or any other question arising on the trial, the judgment was affirmed.
    APPEAL from St. Louis Criminal Court.
    Bay, Attorney-General, for the State.
    
    1. The instructions, if any were asked, are not preserved in the bill of exceptions, therefore it does not appear from the record that the court misinstructed the jury.
    2. The evidence sustains the charge, that ale is a “ fermented liquor;” and the selling of it, after nine of the clock in the morning of Sunday, is prohibited by the Slst sec. of the 8th art. of the act concerning “ Crimes and Punishments.”
   Napton, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant was indicted, under the 31st sec. of the 8th art. of the act concerning Crimes and Punishments,” for selling fermented liquor after nine o’clock on Sunday, and was convicted and fined.

A bill of exceptions was taken at the trial, from which it seems that the appellant sold ale on the day, and at the time, prohibited by the act. Some testimony was given, tending to show that ale was a fermented liquor; but no instructions are placed on the record, if any were given. A motion for a new trial was made, and overruled.

Whether ale was a fermented liquor or not, was a question for the jury; and it not appearing that the court misdirected them in relation to that or any other question arising on the trial, the judgment is affirmed.  