tween one assuming without authority to act as the agent of another, and one who is a mere messenger or go-between; the former being guilty and the latter not.

A servant cannot be convicted of "keeping" where the master is personally present and directing the business, Com. v. Galligan, 144 Mass. 171, 10 N. E. 788; Com. v. Churchill, 136 Mass. 148; State v. Gravelin, 16 R. I. 407, 16 Atl. 914; but if he sells in the master's absence, he may. Com. v. Merriam, 148 Mass. 425, 19 N. E. 405; Com. v. Brady, 147 Mass. 583, 18 N. E. 568; Com. v. Kimball, 105 Mass. 465. See also State v. Hoxsie, 15 R. I. 1, 22 Atl. 1059, 2 Am. St. Rep. 838. 10 One who violates a statute prohibiting sales of goods by any person. as a hawker or peddler cannot escape liability by showing that he sold the goods as agent of the manufacturer, at a salary, and with no personal interest in the goods or their proceeds. Com. v. Gardner, 133 Pa. 284, 19 Atl. 550, 7 L. R. A. 666, 19 Am. St. Rep. 645.

11 Alabama. Williams v. City of Talladega, 164 Ala. 633, 51 So. 330; Bowen v. State, 131 Ala. 39, 31 So. 79; Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. City of Attalla, 118 Ala. 362, 24 So. 450; Dentler v. State, 112 Ala. 70, 20 So. 592; Elsberry v. State, 52 Ala. 8; Winter v. State, 30 Ala. 22. Illinois. Village of Walnut v. Barnett, 141 Ill. App. 367.

Iowa. See State v. Stewart, 138 Iowa 536, 116 N. W. 693.

Kansas. Campbell v. City of Anthony, 40 Kan. 652, 20 Pac. 492; City of Wyandotte v. Corrigan, 35 Kan. 21, 10 Pac. 99.

1

Mississippi. See Mitchell v. City of Meridian, 67 Miss. 644, 7 So. 493.

Virginia. Hardin v. City of Radford, 112 Va. 547, 72 S. E. 101, Ann. Cas. 1913 B 858; Crall v. Com., 103 Va. 855, 49 S. E. 638; s. c. 103 Va. 862, 49 S. E. 1038; White v. Com., 78 Va. 484.

Washington. State v. Ferry Line Auto Bus Co., 99 Wash. 64, 168 Pac. 893; s. c. 93 Wash. 614, 161 Pac. 467; State v. Ferry Line Auto Bus Co., 93 Wash. 614, 161 Pac. 467.

One who collects fares from those riding on a flying-jennie which is operated without a license, aids and abets in its operation, and may be convicted regardless of whether he owns an interest in it or merely receives compensation for his services. Bowen v. State, 131 Ala. 39, 31 So. 79.

But an agent or employee is not liable to prosecution under an ordinance providing for the licensing of auction house proprietors (Kansas City v. Keys, 152 Mo. App. 507, 133 S. W. 660), or imposing an ad valorem tax on the stock of merchants, and providing a penalty for its nonpayment, where there is no provision binding agents or employees for its payment. City of Troy v. Harris, 102 Mo. App. 51, 76 S. W. 662.

12 Illinois. Weare Commission Co. v. People, 209 Ill. 528, 70 N. E. 1076, aff 'g 111 Ill. App. 116; Soby v. People, 134 Ill. 66, 25 N. E. 109; Stevens v. People, 67 Ill. 587.

Massachusetts. Com. v. Drew, 3 Cush. (57 Mass.) 279.

Tennessee. Atkins v. State, 95 Tenn. 474, 32 S. W. 391.

Texas. Lettz v. State (Tex. Cr.), 21 S. W. 371.

West Virginia. State v. Henaghan, 73 W. Va. 706, 81 S. E. 539.

13 Oliver v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 150, 144 S. W. 604.

W. 282; Key v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. 77, 38 S. W. 773; Brignon v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. 71, 38 S. W. 786.

Purchase for minor, Bryant V. State, 82 Ala. 51, 2 So. 670.

25 Boyd v. State, 3 Ala. App. 178, 57 So. 1019.

26 Strong v. State, 88 Ark. 240, 114 S. W. 239, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 560; Hunter v. State, 60 Ark. 312, 30 S. W. 42; Foster v. State, 45 Ark. 361; Skiles v. State, 85 Neb. 401, 123 N. W. 447; Buchanan v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 645, 112 Pac. 32, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83. 274 Fletcher Cyc. Corp. § 2724. See also the following decisions: United States. Kelly v. United States, 258 Fed. 392, certiorari denied, 249 U. S. 616, 63 L. Ed. 803, 39 Sup. Ct. 391; United States v. Winslow, 195 Fed. 578, aff'd 227 U. S. 202, 57 L. Ed. 481, 33 Sup. Ct. 253; United States v. Van Schaick, 134 Fed. 592. Colorado. Overland Cotton Mill Co. v. People, 32 Colo. 263, 75 Pac. 924, 105 Am. St. Rep. 74.

Maine. State v. Great Works Milling & Manufacturing Co., 20 Me. 41, 37 Am. Dec. 38.

Michigan. People v. Detroit White Lead Works, 82 Mich. 471, 46 N. W. 735, 9 L. R. A. 722.

Mississippi. See Moore v. State, 48 Miss. 147, 12 Am. Rep. 367, writ of error dismissed 21 Wall. (U. S.) 636, 22 L. Ed. 653.

New York. People v. Clark, 14 N. Y. Supp. 642.

Oregon. State v. Ross, 55 Ore. 450,

104 Pac. 596, 106 Pac. 1022, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601, 613, appeal dismissed 227 U. S. 150, 57 L. Ed. 458, 33 Sup. Ct. 220, Ann. Cas. 1914 C 224.

Tennessee. State v. Cooley, 141 Tenn. 33, 206 S. W. 182.

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; State v. Burnham, 71 Wash. 199, 128 Pac. 218.

Wisconsin. Milbrath v. State, 138 Wis. 354, 120 N. W. 252, 131 Am. St. Rep. 1012.

The foreman of a mill corporation, who has charge of the mill, may be convicted of polluting a stream by permitting sawdust from the mill to escape into it. State v. Botchford, 71 Wash. 114, 127 Pac. 837.

An agent (4 Fletcher Cyc. Corp. § 2727; Williams v. City of Talladega, 164 Ala. 633, 51 So. 330; Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. City of Attalla, 118 Ala. 362, 24 So. 450; Hays v. Com., 107 Ky. 655, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1418, 55 S. W. 425; State v. Ferry Line Auto Bus Co., 99 Wash. 64, 168 Pac. 893; s. c., 93 Wash. 614, 161 Pac. 467), superintendent (Elsberry v. State, 52 Ala. 8), or general manager (City of Wyandotte v. Corrigan, 35 Kan. 21, 10 Pac. 99; Crall v. Com., 103 Va. 855, 49 S. E. 638; s. c., 103 Va. 862, 49 S. E. 1038) of a corporation may be prosecuted for engaging as

an agent in a business for which the corporation has not taken out a li

cense.

28 State v. Ross, 55 Ore. 450, 104 Pac. 596, 106 Pac. 1022, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601, 613, appeal dismissed 227 U. S. 150, 57 L. Ed. 458, 33 Sup. Ct. 220, Ann. Cas. 1914 C 224.

As to the criminal liability of corporations, see § 159 et seq.

294 Fletcher Cyc. Corp., § 2725; State v. Carmean, 126 Iowa 291, 102 N. W. 97, 106 Am. St. Rep. 352; State v. Parsons, 12 Mo. App. 205; People v. Clark, 14 N. Y. Supp. 642.

"If the corporation is alone made responsible for nonfeasance or misfeasance, or it alone is charged with a duty, its officers not participating cannot be held for the corporation's default if the duty, in some lawful manner, was not placed on them." United States v. Van Schaick, 134 Fed. 592.

Officers of a newspaper corporation are not criminally responsible for a libel published in the paper, where they had nothing to do with the writing or publishing of the libel, or with the editing, publishing, sale, or circulation of the paper containing it. People v. Warden of City Prison, 118 N. Y. Supp. 487.

30 Rast v. State, 79 Fla. 772, 84 So. 683; State v. Carmean, 126 Iowa

291, 102 N. W. 97, 106 Am. St. Rep. 352.

31 It has been held that the general manager of a corporation who knows that its agents are peddling goods without a license may be convicted of peddling without a license, Crall v. Com., 103 Va. 862, 49 S. E. 1038; that the vice president of a company may be criminally responsible for the publication by it of a seditious article, where he knew of the proposed publication in time to prevent it, State v. Smith, 57 Mont. 563, 190 Pac. 107; and that the officers of a corporation are liable where the manner in which its business is conducted constitutes a nuisance, although they are not personally actually engaged in work on the premises, but the work is carried on by employees. People v. Detroit White Lead Works, 82 Mich. 471, 46 N. W. 735, 9 L. R. A. 722. It has also been held that an officer or agent of a corporation is presumed to have that knowledge of the corporate affairs particularly under his control or management which, by the exercise of due diligence, he would have ascertained, Overland Cotton Mill Co. v. People, 32 Colo. 263, 75 Pac. 924, 105 Am. St. Rep. 74; 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; and that where the offense consists in the manner in which the business is conducted, and neither knowledge nor intent is an essential element of it, it is the duty of a managing officer or agent to see that the requirements of the law are observed, and he may be held criminally responsible if it is violated, although he has instructed the corporate employees to observe it, and is not present when it is violated. State v. Burnam, 71 Wash. 199, 128 Pac. 218.

According to some of the courts an officer of a bank may be convicted of receiving deposits knowing that it is insolvent, if, with knowledge of its insolvency, he permits or consents to its receiving such deposits through its regular employees, but other courts hold to the contrary. See § 1292, 32 United States. United States v. Cohn, 128 Fed. 615. Kentucky. Acree & Kinman V. Com., 13 Bush (76 Ky.) 353.

Michigan. People v. Bronner, 145 Mich. 399, 108 N. W. 672.

Mississippi. Whitton v. State, 37 Miss. 379.

South Dakota. State v. Burns, 25 S. D. 364, 126 N. W. 572.

And see Williams v. Hendricks, 115 Ala. 277, 22 So. 439, 41 L. R. A. 650, 67 Am. St. Rep. 32; Com. v. Rovnianek, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 86.

33 Ellison v. Com. (Ky.), 69 S. W. 765; State v. Neal, 27 N. H. 131; State v. Bierman, 1 Strobh. (S. C.) 256; State v. Burns, 25 S. D. 364, 126 N. W. 572.

A part owner of a newspaper who sets the type in which a libelous article is printed is criminally responsible, although he had nothing to do with writing the article. Baldwin v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 245, 45 S. W. 714.

Where partners running a drug store were not druggists in contemplation of the statute, and hence had no right to sell intoxicating liquor at all, and every sale made by them was unlawful, it was held that the very nature of the partnership, so far as the sale of liquor was concerned, was a conspiracy to violate the law, and hence each partner was liable for sales made by the other. State v. O'Kelley, 258 Mo. 345, 167 S. W. 980, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1063.

A partner is liable for an unlawful sale of liquor made by his copartner in the regular course of the partnership business, though he is not present when the sale is made. Ellison v. Com. (Ky.), 69 S. W. 765.

There is no distinction between participation in or assent to an act as a partner and participation or assent in one's individual capacity, and in order to hold a partner criminally liable for an act of a servant of the firm, it is not necessary to show that he assented to or participated in the servant's act as a partner. City of Spokane v. Patterson, 46 Wash. 93, 89 Pac. 402, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1104, 123 Am. St. Rep. 921, 13 Ann. Cas. 706.

34 Under a statute making any person selling liquor in violation of law "and also any person who may own or have any interest in" any liquor so