Bird v. State

Decision Date10 April 1915
PartiesBIRD v. STATE.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Appeal from Criminal Court, Rutherford and Cannon Counties; Jno. E Richardson, Judge.

Sam Bird, Charles Moore, Burt Fugitt, and William Lewis were each separately indicted and convicted for unlawfully carrying transporting, and conveying intoxicating liquor from one county to another, in the state of Tennessee, and they appeal. Judgment reversed in each case, and cases dismissed.

Tom Lytle and James D. Richardson, Jr., both of Murfreesboro, and S. S. Brown, of Woodbury, for appellants.

The Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

GREEN J.

In the four cases above, indictments were returned against defendants below for unlawfully carrying, transporting, and conveying intoxicating beverages from one county to another in the state of Tennessee.

Appropriate steps were taken by all the defendants in their own behalf but they were nevertheless all found guilty, and have appealed in error to this court.

In passing on these cases, it becomes necessary to consider and determine the real meaning of two acts of the Legislature passed at the second extra session of 1913. Chapter 1 was passed October 16, 1913, and approved by the Governor on October 17, 1913, at 11:20 a. m. Chapter 3 was passed on October 16, 1913, and approved on October 17th, at 10:45 a. m. Chapter 1 was therefore the last act to become a law.

The title and sections of chapter 1 necessary to be considered in this investigation are as follows:

"An act regulating the shipment of intoxicating liquor into this state or between points within this state; regulating the delivery of such liquor; providing for the filing of statements with the county clerk showing such shipments, and providing that certified copies of each statement may be used as evidence, and for the fees to such county clerk for making such copies; prescribing penalties for violation of the provisions of this act; and conferring jurisdiction for the trial of violations of this act upon the courts of the county from or to which such shipments may be made, and regulating the procedure in relation thereto.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Tennessee, that it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to ship, carry, transport or convey any intoxicating liquor into this state, or from one point to another within this state, for the purpose of delivery, or to deliver the same to any person, firm, company, or corporation within the state, except as hereinafter provided."

"Sec. 9. Be it further enacted, that nothing in this act shall make it unlawful:

1. For any person, for the use of himself or the members of his family residing with him, to personally carry and transport to his own home such intoxicating liquor in quantities not exceeding one gallon.

2. For any person to order and have shipped and delivered to him from without the state, for his own use or the use of the members of his family residing with him, such intoxicating liquor in quantities not exceeding one gallon.

3. For any person, for his own use and the use of his family residing with him, to order from and have shipped and delivered to him such intoxicating liquor, in quantities not exceeding one gallon, from any point in this state where such liquor can be lawfully sold for the purpose for which it is ordered; provided, the person, firm, or corporation from whom such liquor is ordered or bought or by whom it is shipped is authorized by the laws of this state to sell liquor for the purpose for which it is ordered.

4. For any priest or minister of any religious denomination or sect to order, ship, or have shipped, carried, and delivered wine for sacramental purposes; or for any common carrier, corporation, or person to ship, transport, carry, or deliver wine for said purposes to any priest or minister of any religious denomination or sect.

5. For any person, firm, or corporation to order, ship, transport, carry, or deliver intoxicating liquor into and within this state for purposes for which such liquor can be lawfully sold under the laws of this state, and to a person * * * authorized to sell such liquors. But in all cases where any person, firm, or corporation carries and delivers any such intoxicating liquor for the purposes covered by subsections 2, 3, 4, 5 of this section, * * * or the agent of any such firm, person, corporation, or carrier, shall require of the consignee a statement in writing, to be signed by such consignee, similar in form to the statement set out in section 5 hereof, showing the purpose for which said liquor has been ordered and is to be used, and, in cases covered by subsection 5 of this section, that the consignee is authorized by law to sell such liquor for the purpose for which it was ordered and delivery is sought; and any person who shall make a false statement in regard to the purpose for which said liquors are bought and are to be used or are used, shall be subject to the penalties prescribed in section 6 hereof.

Sec. 10. Be it further enacted, that the delivery for shipment, the shipment, carriage, transportation, and delivery to the consignee of such liquors within the prohibition of this act from one point in this state to another point within the state, shall be deemed a continuing offense; and both the circuit and criminal courts held in the county from or to which such shipments are made, or in which delivery of any * * * shipment is made, shall have jurisdiction for the trial of any and all violations of this act, and the grand juries of said counties shall be vested with inquisitorial powers over violations of this act, and the circuit and criminal judges shall call attention to this act in charging the grand juries."

We set out in full chapter 3:

"An act, to prohibit the conveying or shipping of whisky, wine, ale, beer, and all other intoxicants from one county to another county in this state, and to give jurisdiction to the courts of the county to which shipment is made to try violations of this act, and to fix punishment for violation of same.

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Tennessee, that it shall be unlawful

for any person, firm, or corporation to ship or convey whisky, wine, ale, beer, and all other intoxicants, from one county to another county in this state.

Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, that the circuit and criminal courts held in the county to which shipments are made, or in which deliveries of any intoxicants are made, shall have jurisdiction to indict and try violators of this statute; and grand juries shall be vested with inquisitorial powers over violations of this statute, and circuit and criminal judges shall call attention to this statute in charging the grand juries.

Sec. 3. Be it further enacted, that any person, firm, or corporation violating section 1 of this act shall, upon conviction, be fined not less than one hundred dollars and not more than five hundred dollars for each offense, and may, in the discretion of the court, in addition to a fine, be incarcerated in the county jail for any period of time the court thinks proper and right, so that it does not exceed six months.

Sec. 4. Be it further enacted, that this act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it."

Apparently it is unlawful, under the provisions of chapter 3, for a citizen to personally carry his own liquor in any quantity from one county in the state to another. Likewise it seems unlawful under this act to ship the liquor from one county to another in any quantity, even though it be lawfully sold in the first county and is bought for a lawful purpose by consignee.

Chapter 1, the later act, however, expressly permits (section 9, subsec. 1) the personal transportation of liquor in gallon quantities by any person to his home; (subsection 3) the shipment to any persons of gallon quantities from authorized dealers for authorized purposes; (subsection 4) the shipment to priests or ministers for sacramental purposes; (subsection 5) shipment to authorized dealers for sale for authorized purposes.

These two acts relate to the same subject-matter and should be construed together. Being in pari materia, they should be harmonized, and effect should be given to the various provisions of each. Pond...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Gates v. Long
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1938
    ... ... of complainants accordingly is that none of these bills was ... legally passed by the House ...          In ... State of Tennessee ex rel. v. Shumate, 113 S.W.2d ... 381, just announced, we held that Shumate, one of the members ... of the House whose eligibility ... should be construed as one act." Hill v ... Roberts, 142 Tenn. 215, 217 S.W. 826, 828; Bird v ... State, 131 Tenn. 518, 175 S.W. 554, Ann.Cas.1917A, 634 ...          We can ... look, therefore, to one act to supply any ... ...
  • Davis v. Beeler
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • November 29, 1947
    ...496, 34 S.W. 1017; [Stonega] Coke & Coal Co. v. [Southern] Steel Co., 123 Tenn. 428, 131 S.W. 988, 31 L.R.A.,N.S., 278; Bird v. State, 131 Tenn. 518, 175 S.W. 554, Ann.Cas.1917A, 634. All acts in pari materia should be together as if one law. Merriman v. Lacefield, 51 Tenn. 209.' Nowhere in......
  • State v. Cumberland Club
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • September 23, 1916
    ...165 S.W. 236. The cases since the publication of that decision are State ex rel. v. Persica, 130 Tenn. 48, 168 S.W. 1056; Bird v. State, 131 Tenn. 518, 175 S.W. 554; Todtenhausen v. Knox County, 132 Tenn. 169, 177 487; Hamilton National Bank v. Amster, 134 Tenn. 537, 184 S.W. 5; Wilson v. W......
  • City of Knoxville v. Gervin
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1936
    ... ... municipalities rests upon the insistence that a municipality ... is an arm of the state, i. e., is the government, and that ... time does not run against the sovereign. However, the claim ... of sovereignty on behalf of counties and ... necessary to carry out the legislative intent. Ransom v ... Rutherford County, 123 Tenn. 1, 23, 130 S.W. 1057, ... Ann.Cas. 1912B, 1356; Bird v. State, 131 Tenn. 518, ... 527, 175 S.W. 554, Ann.Cas. 1917A, 634; Smith v ... Haire, 133 Tenn. 343, 349, 181 S.W. 161, Ann.Cas.1916D, ... 529 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT