The State’s evidence, if believed, showed conclusively a sale by the defendant to the prosecuting witness, William Thomas. Conversely, -the defendant’s evidence, if believed, established conclusively an alibi on behalf of the defendant. The' jury might have accepted either view of the evidence, but the appeal presents the question as to whether, upon the record, a conviction of a sale through an agent can be sustained. There was a suggestion that the sale may have been made by I. Parris, the defendant’s father.
The prosecuting witness, and others, purchased liquor at the defendant’s house on the same day. There were five or six men present at the time this took place at a private home in the country. Considering the entire evidence, we think it sufficient to be submitted to the jury, and to warrant a verdict of guilty.
In S. v. Winner, 153 N. C., 602, there was evidence tending to show a sale -in defendant’s place of business by means of a dumb waiter. The purchaser made known his presence and his thirst, a tin cup appeared in a hole in the wall, money was placed in it, the cup disappeared and a bottle of whiskey appeared in a few seconds. Testimony of a similar transaction was offered in corroboration. This evidence was held to be sufficient to warrant a conviction, though it did not appear that the defendant was present at the time.
A principal is prima facie liable for the acts of his agent, and one who aids and abets another in the commission of a misdemeanor is held to the same degree of guilt as a principal, because in misdemeanors all concerned are principals. S. v. Kittelle, 110 N. C., 560.
The question of a sale through an agent, in the instant case, may not have been considered by the jury at all, as there was ample evidence tending to show that the defendant was present and made the sale himself. This could have been determined by polling the jury; and, in all probability, the appeal would have been obviated had the defendant requested that such be done.
No error.