Lemons v. State
| Decision Date | 02 October 1922 |
| Docket Number | (No. 161.) |
| Citation | 244 S.W. 1 |
| Parties | LEMONS v. STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; R. E. L. Johnson, Judge.
Lafayette Lemons was convicted of violating the liquor law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Jeff Bratton, of Paragould, for appellant.
J. S. Utley, Atty. Gen., and Elbert Godwin and W. T. Hammock, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The appellant appeals from a judgment of conviction under an indictment which charges that —
He "did unlawfully and feloniously manufacture, and was unlawfully and feloniously interested in the manufacture of alcoholic, vinous, malt, spirituous and fermented liquors and a compound or preparation thereof, commonly called tonics, bitters, or medicated liquors."
The testimony on behalf of the state was to the effect that appellant rented a potato house from one Mrs. Julia Spain, for the purpose of storing his potatoes therein during the potato storage season for the years 1919 and 1920. The storage season for potatoes is from the time they are harvested in the summer until they are planted the following spring. When Mrs. Spain rented the house to appellant she delivered the key to him. As far as she knew, he had complete control of the building until he was arrested on the 4th of March, 1922, on the charge of manufacturing alcoholic liquors. At the time of his arrest he had potatoes in the house, and was in complete control of the building. Appellant was suspected by the officers, and under authority of a search warrant they searched the potato house.
The sheriff of Greene county secured the search warrant to search the potato house. He found appellant, and requested him to go with him while he searched the house. Appellant asked the sheriff to wait for him 10 or 15 minutes before making the search. The sheriff denied appellant's request, and took him to the building immediately. On their way the appellant told the sheriff that he was looking for a United States marshal; that he had found something out there in the potato house, and did not know what it was. The sheriff asked appellant why he had not reported what he had found to him, and appellant replied, "Well, I was looking for the United States marshal." When the sheriff first met the appellant and informed him that he had a warrant, appellant told the sheriff to go ahead out there without him; that he could jerk the lock and it would come open, but the sheriff took the appellant along, and when they reached the house the appellant jerked the lock, and the door did not come open. Whereupon the appellant unlocked the door, and they went in and found 35 or 40 gallons of mash and drippings. The mash consisted of meal, sugar, or molasses, with yeast cake in it. There were two barrels in there. One of these barrels contained mash and drippings, and the other contained about 16 gallons of strained drippings, and in a tow sack hanging over inside the barrel was meal and stuff. The mash, which had not been strained or dripped, was working, bubbling, and was very sour. The officer found a lard stand, which had contained wet meal, some of the meal remaining in the stand. The strained mash or drippings looked like it was ready to be distilled into whisky. The mash had the odor of whisky, and alcoholic scent. The barrels looked like they had been there for some time — some six or eight months. In the potato house there was a little room lined with tow sacks to make it air-tight. The officer found a still and a still worm under a small platform covered with tow sacks. Nothing could be seen in the house until they had a light. They found in the house a barrel, which the appellant said contained vinegar, but which the officers found to be water.
The sheriff described fully the building and its contents and surroundings, and explained how the still and its equipment, which he found in the potato house, were operated in the process of manufacturing liquor. He testified that the still smelled like it had been used — "it smelled like white mule." It was shown by a registered pharmacist that mash consisted of meal, chops, sugar, or molasses, water, and yeast cake, and that when same had soured and was bubbling it contained alcohol. He gave it as his opinion that the mash or preparation described by the sheriff would contain alcohol.
The appellant, in his testimony, denied that he had anything to do with the manufacture of liquor. He admitted that he had a key to the potato house, and as far as he knew no one else used the potato house, or had any connection with it except himself. He testified that the barrels containing the mash were "old slack barrels," and were in the building when he rented it.
Witnesses were introduced on behalf of the appellant, who testified to the effect that the appellant was a hardworking and industrious man, who was constantly employed working for a living.
1. The appellant contends first that the testimony was not sufficient to...
To continue reading
Request your trial