Intoxicating liquors sold by any shift or device to evade the law is a violation. Thus where the evidence shows that the accused sold cigarettes at ten cents each and gave the purchaser a drink of whiskey it was held to be a sale of the drink of whiskey by a shift.66

So in the case of a boy who went to a saloon and asked for some whiskey and the accused said he could not let him have it. The boy afterwards went to a barn which was near the saloon where he found a half pint bottle of whiskey on a rock. He took it and left twenty-five cents in its place. These circumstances were held sufficient to prove that this was a mere shift to evade the law.67

So also if a sale of one gallon of intoxicating liquor be made and the purchaser takes only a part of the gallon away at the time of making the purchase, leaving the residue in the possession of the person from whom he made the purchase, and not separated from the bulk in the barrel from which the part delivered was taken, this is a sale only of the part delivered, and is a violation by selling in less quantity than one gallon.68

64 State vs. Tisdale, 54 Minn., 105;

Briffil vs. State, 58 Wis., 39;

Fenton vs. State, 100 Ind., 598;

Hughes' Cr. Law, Sec. 1375. 65 Bell vs. State, 91 Ga., 227; State vs. Biddle, 54 N. H, 379;

Hewitt vs. People, 186 Ill., 336;

Hertel vs. People, 78 Ill. App., 109; State .vs. Starr, 67 Me., 242; Bandalow vs. People, 90

Ill., 218; Hansberg vs. People, 120 Ill., 21. 66 Archer vs. State, 45 Md., 33;

Hughes' Cr. Law, Sec. 1381. 67 Stultz vs. State, 96 Ind., 456.

See Archer vs. State, 45 Md., 33.

But it would not be a violation if the whole gallon so purchased is separated from the bulk in the barrel and only a part of the gallon be delivered.69