Jenkins v. State
| Decision Date | 21 October 1908 |
| Docket Number | 1,273. |
| Citation | 62 S.E. 574,4 Ga.App. 859 |
| Parties | JENKINS v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The phrase "at their place of business," appearing in the general prohibition statute of 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 81, § 1), includes in its meaning the immediate room or place in which the business in question is conducted, also any nearby room or place used by the proprietor in connection with the business, or in such a relation to the actual place of business as to indicate that the nearby room, compartment etc., is a convenient place which the proprietor would probably use for keeping therein such liquors as he might desire to furnish others for the purpose of inducing trade or for keeping therein liquors intended for unlawful sale under cover of the business carried on in the main place.
(a) The preposition "at" has a great relativity of meaning conforming readily to the nature of the thing which constitutes its grammatical object and to the principal notion in the mind of the person using it. It generally includes in its meaning all that "in" would, but not quite as much as "in and near" would (citing Words and Phrases, vol. 1, p. 595; vol. 8, p. 7585).
(b) A "place of business," within the purview of the state prohibition law (Acts 1907, p. 81, § 1), means a place devoted by the proprietor to the carrying on of some form of trade or commerce.
[Ed Note.-For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 915-923; vol. 8, pp. 7593, 7594; vol. 6, pp. 5390-5392.]
An officer, who discovers a person keeping intoxicating liquor at his place of business, may arrest him without a warrant, and may seize the liquor for the purpose of using it as evidence.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 4, Arrest, § 151.]
Where a defendant is indicted under two names, alleged by an alias dictus, it is necessary only that the state should show that he is commonly known by either of them.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Indictment and Information, § 539.]
Error from City Court of La Grange; Frank Harwell, Judge.
Henry Jenkins, alias Henry Jinks, was convicted of violation of the prohibition law, and brings error. Affirmed.
M. U. Mooty and Gaffney & Greer, for plaintiff in error.
Henry Reeves, for the State.
Jenkins, by his friends familiarly called "Jinks," had a little store in La Grange, and to the rear partially cut off by a partition wall, was a smaller room, in which no goods were usually bought and sold, but in which he kept coca-cola and stored "plunder." For some reason-he does not explain why; but, then, some officers are naturally suspicious of some folks-the chief of police of the city suspected that Jinks was occasionally selling a little liquor. So on a certain Saturday afternoon the chief of police, sauntering leisurely in the neighborhood of the store, was "given the wink" by some one who had been stationed to watch, and immediately thereafter, going into the store and into the back room, found a man and two women standing in the presence of a two-gallon jug and some whisky glasses. The jug was empty; but the mouth of it was still wet, and smelled of the corn whisky which had just passed through it. The glasses, too, were moist, and in the bottom of one of them remained about a teaspoonful of corn whisky. Upon the interruption of the policeman, the party explained that they were drinking cider. The suspicious gaze of the officer fell also upon a closed box, the contents of which were guarded with a lock; so he asked Jinks if he might see inside the box, to which Jinks replied that he might. When Jinks unlocked the box, another small bottle of whisky was found therein. There was also in the store a trap-door, leading into a cellar. In the cellar was found a number of empty jugs. The officer had no warrant for the defendant's arrest and no search warrant for his premises. The testimony of the defendant's witnesses was to the effect that he, together with a party of friends, had ordered some whisky on joint account; that on the night before it had arrived in the defendant's absence, and they had divided it, and had left the defendant's share in his back room. The defendant himself explained the presence of the liquor in the box by saying it was a little he was keeping for his wife. We may say, in passing, that the wives of this country must be hard drinkers, if all the explanations of husbands as to their possession of liquors is to be taken as true. The defendant was put on trial for violating the prohibition act of 1907, by having and keeping liquor on hand at his place of business.
1. Counsel for the plaintiff in error contends that the having of the liquor in the back room, especially so far as it was kept in the locked box, did not constitute a having or keeping on hand of liquor at the defendant's place of business. Indeed, to quote directly from his brief, he says "The jury evidently proceeded upon the idea that to keep on hand at one's place of business means simply to have at one's place of business, or around one's place of business, or near one's place of business, which is not the law." He further contends that the law is not violated unless the keeping is a public keeping at a public place of business, and that to have it locked in a box is not so to keep it; that, before the law is violated, the liquor must be accessible to the customers of the place of business. The definition of what is a place of business is a matter of law, for the determination of the court; the finding as to whether any particular place falls within the definition is a matter of fact, for the determination of the jury, except in those cases where the facts necessary to constitute the particular place a place of business are conceded to exist. Tooke v. State, 61 S.E. 917, 4 Ga.App. 495; Roberts v. State, 60 S.E. 1082, 4 Ga.App. 207. The same is true of the word "at," as employed in the phrase of the prohibition act, "keep on hand at their place of business." "At" is not a word of precise and accurate meaning, or of clean, clear-cut definition. It has a great relativity of meaning, shaping itself easily to varying contexts. The standard authorities say that it sometimes means "in" or "within," and sometimes "in and near." See Words & Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 595 et seq.; vol. 8, p. 7585. The Supreme Court in Minter v. State, 104 Ga. 753, 30 S.E. 992, said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial