Gibbs v. State

• Decision Date: 16 May 1939
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 364.
• Citation: 192 So. 514,29 Ala.App. 113
• Parties: GIBBS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

192 So. 514

29 Ala.App. 113

GIBBS v. STATE.

7 Div. 364.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

May 16, 1939

Rehearing Granted Oct. 3, 1939.

Further Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1939.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Talladega County; Lamar Field, Judge.

Ted Gibbs was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded on rehearing.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Gibbs v. State, 192 So 515.

Obe Riddle, of Talladega, and L. H. Ellis, of Columbiana, for appellant.

Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Noble J Russell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD Judge.

The defendant was tried on a complaint sworn to before the Judge of the County Court, which charged that the defendant did accept the delivery of, received, have in possession possess, sell, offer for sale, keep for sale, or otherwise dispose of, prohibited liquors and beverages, contrary to law in Talladega County.

On a trial before the County Court the defendant was convicted and from that judgment he appealed to the Circuit Court where he was again tried before a jury and again convicted, from which judgment of conviction is this appeal.

The evidence for the State, without contradiction, tended to prove that the defendant was in the constructive possession of eleven pints of whiskey and some ten cases of beer, all of which is prohibited liquor within dry counties. It appears from the evidence that all of this liquor and beer had the State's Revenue Stamp attached to each package. There was some evidence tending to prove that the beer and whiskey was being sold openly on the premises of the defendant and at a time when he was present.

After the testimony was all in, the court gave an extended charge to the jury, in which the court stated to the jury: "If he has got it (the prohibited liquors) for his own personal use, in a dwelling house, then by implication, he has a right to keep it there because the State of Alabama, in the opinion of the court, wouldn't do the absurd thing of saying it would take the money of anybody for whiskey or beer, for their own personal use, and then say that they couldn't go anywhere in the State with it, or require such person to drink it in a wet county, where he bought it, and go back there at any time he wanted to use it."

This was, and is, in the very teeth of the opinion of this Court and the Supreme Court in its construction of An Act of the Legislature, known as the "Alcoholic Beverage Control Act," Gen. Acts 1936-37, Ex. Sess., p. 40, and we deem it our duty to call this to attention in passing upon this appeal; although further decision on this matter is not necessary.

It is not for the courts to say what the Legislature should have done, or what was its intention, unless such intention is contained in the legislative language. The language may be explained, it cannot be detracted from or added to. The office of interpretation is not to improve the Statute, it is to expound it; and the court knows nothing of the intention of an Act, except from the words in which it is expressed, applied to the facts existing at the time. May v. Head, 210 Ala. 112, 96 So. 869; Williams v. State, 28 Ala.App. 73, 179 So. 915.

In the case of Williams v. State, supra, this whole question was considered at length by this Court, which opinion was approved by the Supreme Court on certiorari. Williams v. State, 235 Ala. 520, 179 So. 920.

It is the duty of trial judges to charge the law as it has been declared by appellate...