Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 06 June 1925 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court, Davidson County; J. C. Edwards, Special Judge.
Maggie Johnson was convicted of violating the Bone Dry Law, and she brings error. Reversed, and remanded for new trial.
John W Hilldrop, of Nashville, and Will N. Byers, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
W. H Swiggart, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This was a conviction for violating chapter 12, Acts of 1917 known as the Bone Dry Law. The defendant was tried by the judge without a jury, by consent of parties found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $250, and to serve 60 days in the workhouse.
The assignments relate to the sufficiency of the evidence particularly in that the liquor is shown to have been found on premises where the defendant resided with her husband; it being insisted that the presumption applied that the liquor belonged to the husband as the head of the house. The case of Flora Crocker v. State, 148 Tenn. 106, 251 S.W. 914, is relied on.
The indictment contained four counts charging (1) receiving; (2) possessing; (3) transporting interstate; and (4) transporting intrastate. It must be conceded that the evidence does not sustain the transportation charges. The charge of possessing is, however, made out, unless the facts of the case bring it within the holding in Crocker v. State, supra. That case was a prosecution under chapter 3 of the Acts of 1917; the offense under that act being the keeping of liquor stored on the premises for the purpose of present or future sale. In that case the court not only found that the "premises were under the dominion and control of the husband, not the wife," but that "there is nothing in the state's evidence which shows that the defendant, rather than her husband, owned or stored the whisky, or that she, and not the husband, was keeping it at their residence for the purpose of present sale."
The instant case, as before stated, is brought under chapter 12, Acts of 1917, which makes it unlawful for any person merely to possess intoxicating liquor, received after the passage of the act, whether intended for personal use or otherwise. The proof is clear that the defendant, Maggie Johnson, was at the time of her arrest in manual possession and control of intoxicating liquor, and exercising acts of concealment thereof, and asserting forcibly claims to its possession. The evidence shows that she not only attempted to conceal the liquor from the officer, but that he was able to obtain possession of it only "after a scuffle" with the defendant.
Conceding that the defendant was a married woman, and that the premises on which she was found with this intoxicating liquor thus in her possession were the premises of her husband, we are of opinion that the active exercise by her of acts of possession and control bring her within the condemnation of the law,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waller v. State
...We distinguished the Crocker case, which was a prosecution under Chapter 2, Acts of 1917, for keeping liquor for sale, in Johnson v. State, 152 Tenn. 184, 274 S.W. 12, held that, "although the mere location of intoxicating liquor on premises owned by the husband and jointly inhabited by the......
-
Lea v. State
...of law. She was not required to go with him on the trip, knew of the presence of the liquor in the car, and both were found guilty. In the Johnson case the wife undertook to conceal liquor and struggled with an officer to keep him from seizing it. In the case before us, as in the previous L......
-
Evans v. State
...644, 4 A.L.R. 264. She is to be regarded, in the contemplation of our criminal statutes, as an independent entity." Johnson v. State, 152 Tenn. 184, 187, 274 S.W. 12. Since we are forced to reverse for the insufficiency of proof to sustain the conviction, it is unnecessary to discuss the le......
-
Evans v. State
...644, 4 A.L.R. 264. She is to be regarded, in the contemplation of our criminal statutes, as an independent entity.' Johnson v. State, 152 Tenn. 184, 187, 274 S.W. 12. we are forced to reverse for the insufficiency of proof to sustain the conviction, it is unnecessary to discuss the legality......