Marable v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 11 June 1925
• Citation: Marable v. Commonwealth, 142 Va. 644 (1925)
• Parties: EUGENE MARABLE v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 644

142 Va. 644

EUGENE MARABLE v.COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Wytheville.

June 11, 1925.

Argued before Judge Chichester took his seat.

1.INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Possession of Still — Evidence Sufficient to Sustain Conviction.— Accused was convicted of the unlawful ownership and possession of a still.Most of the incriminating facts were uncontradicted, and accused's denial of his guilt was substantially all that was relied upon in a motion to set aside the verdict.Accused was arrested as he approached and was in a few feet of the still.He attempted to evade arrest by flight and at a later time that day did escape, but surrendered a few days thereafter.Therefore, there was little reason to question the correctness of the jury's conclusion that he was guilty of the offense charged.

2.INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Evidence — Rebuttal of Evidence of Reputation — Evidence to Show that Accused was Engaged in a Legitimate Business — Case at Bar.— Accused was convicted of the unlawful ownership and possession of a still.To counteract the overwhelming testimony that the reputation of accused was notorious as a violator of the prohibition law, accused offered about twenty receipts from persons living in Maryland and Washington showing the purchase of mules, harnesses, wagons, etc., covering a period of about eighteen months, alleged to have been used by accused in his business as a road contractor in Maryland during that period.

Held: That the trial court did not err in refusing to receive this evidence.Some of it was too remote in point of time, and all of it raised immaterial and inconsequential issues before the jury.There was no apparent inconsistency between the legitimate business of accused in Maryland and the illegitimate business in Virginia.

3.INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Reputation as a Violator of the Prohibition Act — Place of Reputation — Case at Bar.— Accused was convicted of the unlawful ownership and possession of a still and assigned as error the introduction of testimony as to his reputation as a violator of the prohibition law, on the ground that as he had not resided for several years in the county where he was convicted before the time of the alleged offense, he could not have acquired such a reputation in that county, and that the testimony should have been limited to his reputation in the city in which he resided.Accused owned property in the county which he frequently visited, and had actually acquired this reputation there.

Held: That the evidence of reputation was admissible.

4.INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Character in Evidence — Reputation as a Violator of the Prohibition Act — Place of Reputation.— In these days of rapid transportation, one may easily acquire a reputation, good or bad, in places which he frequents, and this without any special reference to the place which he claims as his legal residence.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Prince George county.

The opinion states the case.

R. T. Wilson and Richard H. Mann, for the plaintiff in error.

Attorney-General Jno.R. Saunders, Assistant Attorney-GeneralLeon M. Bazile and Lewis H. Machen, for the Commonwealth.

PRENTIS, P., delivered the opinion of the court.

The accused has been convicted under an indictment which charged him with the unlawful ownership and possession of a copper still, still cap, worm, tubs, fermenters, and other appliances used, mash and other substances capable of being used, in the manufacture of ardent spirits, and is here assigning several errors.

1.One of these assignments is that the court erred in refusing to set aside the verdict because the evidence was insufficient.

We do not think it is...