Coleman v. Rightmyer

• Decision Date: 28 May 1926
• Docket Number: No. 26921.,26921.
• Citation: 285 S.W. 403
• Parties: STATE v. JORDAN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

285 S.W. 403

STATE v. JORDAN.

No. 26921.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 28, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dunklin. County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge.

V. M. Jordan was convicted of selling corn whisky, and he appeals. Affirmed.

North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and Harry L. Thomas, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WHITE, J.

In the circuit court of Dunklin county, November 10, 1924, the defendant was found guilty by a jury of selling corn whisky.

In February, 1924, J. F. Palmer, Cecil Overall, and Wallace Loving drove to the residence of the defendant, about five miles from Kennett. The three men had been employed by G. H. Foree, a prohibition detective. They stopped in front of Jordan's house. Defendant came to the gate, and Loving asked him: "Do you know me?" He replied: "Sure. How much do you want?"

Loving asked for a pint of whisky, got it, and paid for it $2 which had been given to him for the purpose by the other men. The whisky was taken immediately to Kennett and delivered to Foree, who identified it as corn whisky—moonshine. Foree tested it, analyzed it, and found it contained 59 per cent, alcohol; 98 per cent, proof. It contained enough alcohol to burn; some of it was burned in the presence of the jury.

Defendant testified that he had moved to that place in February, and had posted a notice reading, "Don't call for no whisky or white mule here," because a tent on the premises had once been searched for whisky, and he put up the notice to protect his family. He denied that he sold any whisky, at the time mentioned by the witnesses.

The appellant has filed no brief in this court.

Counsel for the state offered in evidence the bottle of whisky identified by the witnesses as having been purchased from the defendant. The jury were permitted to inspect it by smelling. The defendant objected to that evidence. The court overruled the objection, and the ruling is assigned as error in the motion for new trial.

No precedent is cited in support of the objection. We see no reason why the jury should not he permitted to inspect the sample of liquor which the defendant was charged to have sold the same as they may inspect any other article or object offered in evidence.

Objections were offered to other evidence, but we find nothing in such objections to require consideration.

The instructions given by the court were full and fair to the defendant. He had a fair trial, and we find no error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment...