Combs v. Com.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1915 |
| Citation | 172 S.W. 101,162 Ky. 86 |
| Parties | COMBS v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Perry County.
John S Combs was convicted of having intoxicating liquors in his possession for sale in local option territory, and appeals. Affirmed.
Napier & Turner, of Hazard, for appellant.
James Garnett, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
The appellant, John S. Combs, is a negro school-teacher in Perry county, and his brother, Brit Combs, is a practicing physician, and has a place of business (not named) in Hazard the county seat of that county. John S. Combs, the appellant was indicted and fined $60 for the offense of having whisky in his possession for the purpose of sale in Perry county, a territory where the sale of such liquor is prohibited by law.
We gather from the testimony of the express agent at Hazard and the appellant--the only witnesses in the case--that Brit Combs ordered 12 gallons of whisky to be shipped in the name of his brother, the appellant. The whisky came by express in four packages. There were marks on the packages to show that they contained whisky, and were for the personal use of the consignee. Brit Combs went to the express office and asked permission of Collins, the agent, to take possession of the whisky and sign his brother's name to the receipt. This being refused, his brother, the appellant, went to the office, signed for the whisky, and told the express agent who was also a drayman, to take the whisky to his brother's place of business. The receipt signed by the appellant is an acknowledgment that he knew the contents of the packages and is a representation that they were for his personal use. The expressman testifies, also, that in case of whisky shipments it was his custom to inquire of the consignee if it was for personal use, and "I think I asked the defendant that question." In the face of the label on the packages, and the wording of the receipt, and his ability as a school-teacher to read, he says that he did not know that the packages contained whisky, nor did he know that his brother Brit had ordered any whisky or other thing in his name.
There were a number of strange and suspicious circumstances connected with the transaction, and all of them were proper subjects for the jury's consideration in determining whether or not the transaction was unlawful. The quantity of whisky in the shipment, the fact that Brit did not order it in his own name, the fact that the appellant, ignorant of the character of it, failed to make any inquiries of his brother, and without a question or a look went to the express office, signed the receipt, and thereby assumed responsibility for it, are sufficient to raise the question as to whether it was not in fact a subterfuge resorted to by both parties to procure the whisky for unlawful use--just such a trick or artifice as the statute declares shall not be used to evade the liquor laws. The fact that Brit undertook to use his brother's name in this way is evidence to show that his reputation was such that he could not accomplish the purpose in his own name.
When appellant receipted for the whisky, he at once directed the express agent how to dispose of it, and the expressman then became his agent to that extent, so that for all practical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sheehan
...(Hendry v. State, supra; State v. Warburton, 97 Wash. 242, 166 P. 615; State v. Blauntia, 170 N.C. 749, 87 S.E. 101; Combs v. Commonwealth, 162 Ky. 86, 172 S.W. 101; Town of Hartsville v. McCall, 101 S.C. 277, 85 599; Bridgeforth v. State, 15 Ala. App. 502, 74 So. 402.) Evidence of other of......
- Com. v. Mackey
- Commonwealth v. Mackey
-
Beets v. Com.
...bar were circumstances that the jury could consider on the question of whether the intoxicants were being kept for sale. Combs v. Commonwealth, 162 Ky. 86, 172 S.W. 101. Although appellant insists he was not the owner or the possessor of intoxicants, the fact that he was secretary, a member......