State v. Fant.&dagger
| Citation | 70 S.E. 1027,88 S.C. 493 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1911 |
| Parties | STATE. v. FANT.† |
1. Indictment and Information (§ 110*)— Sufficiency—Language of Statute. An indictment charging an unlawful keeping of contraband spirituous liquors, in the lan-
guage of the dispensary law of 1909 (26 St. at Large, p. 60), is sufficient.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Dec. Dig. § 110.2-*]
2. Statutes (§ 114*)—Title—Sufficiency.
The title of the dispensary law of 1909 (26 St. at Large, p. 60), 'An act to prohibit the manufacture, sale, barter, exchange, giving away to induce trade, the furnishing at public places, or otherwise disposing of alcohol, spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, etc., is broad enough to cover the prohibition in the body of the statute of storing and keeping in possession.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Statutes, Dec. Dig. § 114.*]
3. Constitutional Law (§ 46*)—Objections —Necessity of Determination.
The question whether a statute violates the interstate commerce clause of the federal Constitution (article 1, § 8) will not be reviewed, where it does not appear that the commodity in question was under the protection of interstate commerce.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 43-45; Dec. Dig. § 46.*]
4. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 236*)—Dispensary Law—Violation—Evidence — Sufficiency.
Evidence in a trial for violating the dispensary law of 1909 (26 St. at Large, p. 60), held sufficient to show that liquors were kept for unlawful use.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Dec. Dig. § 236.*]
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; G. W. Gage, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
A. B. Fant was convicted of violating the dispensary law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
A. H. Dagnall, for appellant.
P. A. Bonham, Sol., for the State.
JONES, C. J. Defendant was convicted and sentenced upon an indictment under the dispensary law of 1909 (26 St. at Large, p. 60) charging that on September 3, 1910, at Anderson, S. C, he "willfully and unlawfully did store and keep in possession contraband spirituous liquors containing alcohol and used as a beverage, against the form of the statute. * * *" Defendant demurred to the indictment: (1) On the ground that it alleges no offense, in that it is not charged that the liquors were stored and kept by defendant for an unlawful use, and for what use. (2) Because the act of 1909 is unconstitutional, being in violation of section 17, art. 3, of the Constitution of South Carolina, providing: "Every act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in the title." (3) Because said act is in contravention of the interstate commerce clause of the United States Constitution (article 1, § 8). These objections are renewed here by the exceptions to the refusal of the court to quash the indictment.
We think the indictment was sufficient, as it charged an unlawful storing and keeping in possession of contraband liquors in the language of the statute creating the offense. The state was required to show that the liquors were stored or kept for an unlawful purpose.
The title of the statute, "An act to prohibit the manufacture, sale, barter, exchange, giving away to induce trade, the furnishing at public places or otherwise disposing of alcohol, spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, " etc., is broad enough to cover the prohibition in the body of the statute of storing and keeping in possession. The prevention of storing and keeping in possession of contraband liquors is germane to the purposes declared in the title. State v. O'Day, 74 S. C. 448, 54 S. E. 607.
The question whether the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dove v. Kirkland
... ... freeholder residing within the limits of school district ... No. 13, Richland county, the state of South Carolina ... "(2) ... That the respondents B. B. Kirkland, J. B. Duke, and Geo ... W. Taylor are exercising the ... ...
-
Chapman v. Greenville Chamber of Commerce
...but rather to several phases of the same general subject. Aycock-Little Co. v. Sou. Ry. Co., 76 S.C. 331, 57 S.E. 27; State v. Fant, 88 S.C. 493, 70 S.E. 1027; Croft v. Sou. Cotton Oil Co., 83 S.C. 232, 65 216; Riley v. Union Station Co., 71 S.C. 457, at page 487, 51 S.E. 485, 110 Am. St. R......
-
State v. Burns Et Ux
...is reasonably susceptible. See State v. Tooley, 107 S. C. 408, 93 S. E. 132; State v. Twiggs, 123 S. C. 47, 101 S. E. 663; State v. Fant, 88 S. C. 493, 70 S. E. 1027; State v. Drakeford, 120 S. C. 400, 113 S. E. 307. In that view, the contention that there was no evidence of storing in the ......