
    STRAFFORD,
    JULY TERM, A. D. 1847.
    State v. Burns.
    An. indictment alleging that A. and B., “ not being a licensed taverner or retailer,” did sell, &c., sufficiently negatives the qualification of each of them.
    Indictment, alleging that John Burns and Patrick H. Burns, both of Dover, and co-partners in business, on, &c., at, &e., “ not being then and there a licensed taverner or retailer, did then and there unlawfully sell one pint of spirituous liquors,” to one B. P. H., contrary to the form of the statute, &c.
    The defendants demurred, and assigned for cause that the indictment fails to allege that the defendants were not, at the time of the alleged offence, licensed taverners or retailers, &c.
    
      Clark, solicitor, for the State.
    Woodman, for the defendants.
   Gilchrist, J.

The indictment charges that John Burns and Patrick H. Burns, on a day and at a place named, “ not being then and there a licensed taverner or retailer,” did sell spirituous liquors, &c.

There is a demurrer for the cause that the indictment does not contain a sufficient negation of the qualification of the defendants. But we think the indictment is well. It is the same as if it alleged that John Burns, not being a licensed taverner, &c., and Patrick H. Burns, not being a licensed taverner, &c., did sell, &c.

The indictment should in some apt form impute to the defendants severally the disqualification, and it may well be understood so'to do in its present form, reddendo singula singulis.

Demurrer overruled.  