requiring saloon keepers to keep their saloons closed on Sundays, election days or holidays,98 and the like.99 But in order to hold the principal or master liable even under this rule, it must appear that the act of the agent or servant was done in the conduct of the business Iwith which he was charged by the principal or master.1 must appear expressly or by implication that he authorized or had knowledge of the agent's acts. State v. Fagan, 1 Boyce (24 Del.) 45, 74 Atl. 692. See also as to this distinction, State v. Mundy, 1 Boyce (24 Del.) 40, 74 Atl. 377. District of Columbia. Lehman v. District of Columbia, 19 App. Cas. 217. Georgia. Snider v. State, 81 Ga. 753, 7 S. E. 631, 12 Am. St. Rep. 350; Loeb v. State, 75 Ga. 258. Illniois. Noecker v. People, 91 Ill. 494; McCutcheon v. People, 69 Ill. 601. Iowa. State v. McConnell, 90 Iowa 197, 57 N. W. 707; Dudley v. Sautbine, 49 Iowa 650, 31 Am. Rep. 165. But see State v. Hayes, 67 Iowa 27, 24 N. W. 575. Louisiana. State v. Anderson, 127 La. 1041, 54 So. 344, Ann. Cas. 1912 A 1103. Maryland. Carroll v. State, 63 Md. 551, 3 Atl. 29. Mississippi. Riley v. State, 43 Miss. 397; Whitton v. State, 37 Miss. 379. North Carolina. State v. Kittelle, 110 N. C. 560, 15 S. E. 103, 15 L. R. A. 694, 28 Am. St. Rep. 698 (reviewing many cases). Oregon. State v. Brown, 73 Ore. 325, 144 Pac. 444. Vermont. State v. Gilmore, 80 Vt. 514, 68 Atl. 658, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 786, 13 Ann. Cas. 321; State v. Dow, 21 Vt. 484. West Virginia. State v. Nichols, 67 W. Va. 659, 69 S. E. 304, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 419, 21 Ann. Cas. 184; State v. Denoon, 31 W. Va. 122, 5 S. E. 315. England. Police Com'rs v. Cartman, (1896) I. Q. B. 655. For decisions to the contrary, see § 266, supra. 98 Illinois. Banks v. City of Sullivan, 78 Ill. App. 298. Kentucky. City of Paducah Jones, 126 Ky. 809, 104 S. W. 971. V. Michigan. People v. Possing, 137 Mich. 303, 100 N. W. 396; People v. Kriesel, 136 Mich. 80, 98 N. W. 850, 4 Ann. Cas. 5; People v. Roby, 52 Mich. 577, 18 N. W. 365, 50 Am. Rep. 270; People v. Blake, 52 Mich. 566, 18 N. W. 360. South Dakota. State v. Kinney, 21 S. D. 390, 113 N. W. 77; State v. Grant, 20 S. D. 164, 105 N. W. 97, 11 Ann. Cas. 1017. Wisconsin. Reismier v. State, 148 Wis. 593, 135 N. W. 153; Olson v. State, 143 Wis. 413, 127 N. W. 975. For decisions to the contrary, see § 266, supra. 99 Prohibiting screens or curtains in licensed places. Com. v. Kelley, 140 Mass. 441, 5 N. E. 834. Obstructing the view into a saloon during the hours it is required to be kept closed. People v. D'Antonio, 150 N. Y. App. Div. 109, 134 N. Y. Supp. 657. 1 Grosch v. City of Centralia, 6 Ill. App. 107; O'Donnell v. Com., 108 Va. 882, 62 S. E. 373; Reismier v. State, 148 Wis. 593, 135 N. W. 153. The principal is not responsible for sales of liquor on Sunday by an agent § 268. Ratification of unauthorized act. A principal or master does not become criminally responsible for the act of his agent or servant, committed without his knowledge or authority, by subsequently ratifying the same. He must be liable, if at all, at the time the act is done. § 269. Presumption of authority. In some jurisdictions in which it is held that a principal or master is not answerable for the criminal acts of his agent or servant in the course of his employment unless committed by his authority or with his acquiescence or consent, it is held that the state makes out a prima facie case against the principal or master by proof of the agent's or servant's act, and that it is for the former to rebut the presumption of authority by proof that the act was without his authority or knowledge. But employed by him on week days, without proof of knowledge by the principal of the unlawful acts on Sunday, or proof of express or implied authority on the part of the agent to act for the principal on Sunday. State v. Burke, 15 R. I. 324, 4 Atl. 761. Where the defendant was not engaged in the sale of beer, but kept some at his place of business solely for his own consumption, it was held that he was not criminally responsible for a sale made by his clerk by mistake. Partridge v. State, 88 Ark. 267, 114 S. W. 215, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 321, 129 Am. St. Rep. 100. Where an oil company furnished its servant, a correct measure to be used in selling oil from a tank wagon, but the servant substituted an unjust one and kept the money represented by the difference, it was held that the company was not subject to con'viction under a statute making it an offense to have in one's possession an unjust measure for use in trade. Anglo-American Oil Co. v. Manning, L. R. (1908) 1 K. B. D. 536. One cannot be held criminally liable for the acts of a self-constituted agent, done without his knowledge or consent. Prater v. Com., 4 Ky. L. Rep. 344. 2 See § 89, supra. 3 Maine. State v. Wentworth, 65 Me. 234. Missouri. State v. McCance, 110 Mo. 398, 19 S. W. 648; State v. Heckler, 81 Mo. 417; State v. Crawford, 151 Mo. App. 402, 132 S. W. 43; City of Liberty v. Moran, 121 Mo. App. 682, 97 S. W. 948; State v. Terry, 105 Mo. App. 428, 79 S. W. 998; State v. Meagher, 49 Mo. App. 571; State v. Durken, 23 Mo. App. 387. New Jersey. State v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 84 N. J. L. 550, 87 Atl. 86. Ohio. Anderson v. State, 22 Ohio St. 305; Wood v. State, 30 Ohio Cir. Ct. 255; Muhlhauser v. State, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 81. Texas. Olbre v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 520, 123 S. W. 1116. England. Rex v. Almon, 5 Burrow 2686. This rule was laid down in Com. v. Nichols, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 259, 43 Am. Dec. 432, but was later repudiated in Com. v. Stevenson, 142 Mass. 466, 8 N. E. 341. In Kentucky it has been held that other courts hold that no presumption of participation or consent arises from the fact that the act was committed by the agent or servant of the accused.4 In England a person is prima facie responsible criminally for a libel published by his servant, but may escape responsibility by showing that the publication was without his authority, consent, or knowledge, and was not due to want of due care and caution on his part. And the same rule has generally been applied in this country in the case of newspaper libels. It is held that it is the duty of the proprietor of a newspaper to use reasonable care and caution to see that no libels are published; that he is prima facie liable criminally in case a libel is published; and that, while this presumption is not conclusive and may be rebutted, it is no defense that the publication was made without his knowledge or consent, unless it further appears that it did not occur through any negligence or want of care on his part.6 the proprietor of a drug store is liable for sales made by a clerk in charge of the store, in the absence of a showing that such sales were unauthorized. Locke v. Com., 113 Ky. 864, 69 S. W. 763; Ellison v. Com. (Ky.), 69 S. W. 765. 4 Daniel v. State, 149 Ala. 44, 43 So. 22; Seibert v. State, 40 Ala. 60; Hately v. State, 15 Ga. 346. And see Thompson v. State, 45 Ind. 495; State v. Burke, 15 R. I. 324, 4 Atl. 761; State v. Smith, 10 R. I. 258. In Massachusetts it is held that there is no presumption of authority or consent, but that the jury may infer it from the agent's or servant's act. Com. v. Briant, 142 Mass. 463, 8 N. E. 338. And see Com. v. Hurley, 160 Mass. 10, 35 N. E. 89; Com. v. McNeese, 156 Mass. 232, 30 N. E. 1021; Com. v. Perry, 148 Mass. 160, 19 N. E. 212; Com. v. Houle, 147 Mass. 380, 17 N. E. 896; Com. v. Locke, 145 Mass. 401, 14 N. E. 621; Com. v. Holmes, 119 Mass. 195. The question is not for the court, but for the jury. Com. v. Hayes, 145 Mass. 289, 14 N. E. 151. A single unlawful sale will not raise a presumption of authority to make unlawful sales of the same nature, State v. Mahoney, 23 Minn. 181; Parker v. State, 4 Ohio St. 563; nor will a ratification of previous unlawful sales. Patterson v. State, 21 Ala. 571. 5 This is the rule by statutes 6 and 7, Victoria, C. XCVI, as to which see Reg. v. Holbrook, 3 Q. B. D. 60, 4 Q. B. D. 42. This same rule was applied in Rex v. Almon, 5 Burrow 2686, decided prior to the adoption of the statute. But in the later cases of Rex V. Gutch, Moody & M. 433, and Rex V. Walter, 3 Esp. 31, evidence of the publication by the servant was held conclusive upon the master, and he was not allowed to show his innocence, upon the ground that this was necessary to prevent. the escape of the real offender behind an irresponsible party. See also as to the English rule, Com. v. Morgan, 107 Mass. 199; State v. Mason, 26 Ore. 273, 38 Pac. 130, 26 L. R. A. 779, 46 Am. St. Rep. 629; Com. v. Rovnianek, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 86. 6 People v. Fuller, 238 Ill. 116, 87 N. E. 336; Com. v. Morgan, 107 Mass. § 270. Responsibility of agent or servant. It is well settled that, if an agent or servant knowingly commits a crime in the course of his employment, he is criminally responsible therefor. In the absence of mistake of fact, the fact that the act was done by authority, direction or command of his principal or master is no defense whatever, for no man can authorize another to do what he cannot lawfully do himself." Thus, a person who obtains money or property 199; State v. Mason, 26 Ore. 273, 38 Pac. 130, 26 L. R. A. 779, 46 Am. St. Rep. 629; Com. v. Rovnianek, 12 Pa. Super Ct. 12. He should be permitted to show that he was out of the state when the libel was published, and that before he left home he gave specific instructions to those in charge of the paper that during his absence nothing should be published concerning the prosecutor. Com. V. Rovnianek, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 86. The New York Penal Code charges the editor or proprietor of a book, newspaper or serial, or the manager of a partnership or corporation publishing the same, with the publication of any matter contained therein, but permits him to show that the matter complained of was published without his knowledge or fault and against his wishes, by another who had no authority from him to make the publication, and whose act was disavowed by him as soon as known. People v. Eastman, 89 N. Y. Misc. 596, 152 N. Y. Supp. 314. The term "manager," as here used, includes only the actors in the publication. The statute presupposes authority in a person prosecuted as manager to prevent the publication and to publish a disavowal thereof. It will not be presumed that an officer or director of a newspaper corporation is a manager of the corporation within the statute, in the absence of evidence showing his connection with Kentucky. Com. v. Bottom, 140 Ky. 212, 130 S. W. 1091. Massachusetts. Com. v. Hadley, 11 Metc. (Mass.) 66. Mississippi. Wortham v. State, 80 Miss. 205, 32 So. 50. Nebraska. Alt v. State, 88 Neb. 259, 129 N. W. 432, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1212; Allyn v. State, 21 Neb. 593, 33 N. W. 212. New York. People v. Clark, 14 N. Y. Supp. 642. Oklahoma. Buchanan v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 645, 112 Pac. 32, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83; Sturgis v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 362, 102 Pac. 57. Tennessee. Thompson v. State, 105 Tenn. 177, 58 S. W. 213, 51 L. R. A. 883, 80 Am. St. Rep. 875; Atkins v. State, 95 Tenn. 474, 32 S. W. 391. Texas. Cassi v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. 369, 216 S. W. 1099; Sanders v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 525, 21 S. W. 258. from another by false pretenses, with intent to defraud, cannot escape responsibility on the ground that he was acting as the mere agent or servant of another. The same is true where an agent or servant keeps for sale or sells intoxicating liquors in violation of law, or 9 Alabama. Abel v. State, 90 Ala. 631, 8 So. 760. Virginia. Crall v. Com., 103 Va. 855, 49 S. E. 638; s. c. 103 Va. 862, 49 S. E. 1038. Washington. State v. Ferry Line Auto Bus Co., 99 Wash. 64, 168 Pac. 893; s. c. 93 Wash. 614, 161 Pac. 467. West Virginia. State v. Bailey, 63 W. Va. 668, 60 S. E. 785. No individual can authorize another to violate a public law. State v. Matthis, 1 Hill (S. C.) 37. If the offense consists in the manner of conducting a business, an agent or servant who controls such business, or aids and assists in its regulation, may be liable as well as the principal. State v. Ferry Line Auto Bus Co., 99 Wash. 64, 168 Pac. 893; s. c. 93 Wash. 614, 161 Pac. 467; State v. Burnam, 71 Wash. 199, 128 Pac. 218. Where for the purpose of delivering or selling to others, one selects and collects together, with opportunity for examination, and thereafter delivers from such collection to guests or patrons, he may be said to furnish the substance so delivered, although he acts only as the agent of the owner in the transaction. So a waiter in charge of a railway lunch counter who delivers to a patron oleomargarine supplied by the railway company on the waiter's requisition for butter comes within a statute making it an offense to furnish oleomargarine to a guest or patron without first notifying him that it is not butter. Welch v. State, 145 Wis. 86, 129 N. W. 656, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 746. See also the other cases cited in the following notes. 8 State v. Chingren, 105 Iowa 169, 74 N. W. 946. Arkansas. Baird v. State, 52 Ark. 326, 12 S. W. 566; Foster v. State, 45 Ark. 361. Connecticut. 30 Conn. 55. Georgia. Menken v. City of Atlanta, 78 Ga. 668, 2 S. E. 559; Hately v. State, 15 Ga. 346; Christian v. State, 9 Ga. App. 61, 70 S. E. 258. State v. Wadsworth, Kentucky. Com. v. Bottom, 140 Ky. 212, 130 S. W. 1091. Maryland. Lochnar v. State, 111 Md. 660, 76 Atl. 586, 19 Ann. Cas. 579. Massachusetts. Com. v. Hadley, 11 Metc. (Mass.) 66. Missouri. Schmidt V. State, 14 Mo. 137; Hays v. State, 13 Mo. 246; State v. Morton, 42 Mo. App. 64. New York. French v. People, 3 Park. Cr. 114. Oregon. State v. Chastain, 19 Ore. 176, 23 Pac. 963. South Carolina. State v. Matthis, 1 Hill 37. Texas. Witherspoon v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 65, 44 S. W. 164, 1096; La Norris v. State, 13 Tex. App. 33. Virginia. O'Donnell v. Com., 108 Va. 882, 62 S. E. 373. It is immaterial that the servant is a mere volunteer and receives and expects no compensation (State v. Herselus, 86 Iowa 214, 53 N. W. 105; State v. Finan, 10 Iowa 19; Beck v. State, 69 Miss. 217, 13 So. 835; State v. Bugbee, 22 Vt. 32), or is the minor child of the owner being in fact of years of discretion. Cagle v. State, 87 Ala. 38, 93, 6 So. 300. In Com. v. Williams, 4 Allen (86 Mass.) 587, a distinction is made be |