Mowlan v. State
| Decision Date | 20 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 24,916 |
| Parties | Mowlan v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Act of 1923 (Acts 1923 p. 107) concerning stills for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor was not unconstitutional for want of sufficient title.---The act of 1923 (Acts 1923 p. 107) concerning stills for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor was not unconstitutional for want of a sufficient title. p. 519.
2. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Section 2 of Acts 1923 p. 107 concerning the issue of search warrants for stills and distilling apparatus was not unconstitutional because search warrants were not mentioned in the title.---Section 2 of the act of 1923 (Acts 1923 p. 107) concerning the issue of search warrants for stills and distilling apparatus for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor was not unconstitutional because the title made no reference to search warrants. p 519.
3. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Under the law of 1923 (Acts 1923 p 107) concerning stills for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, a search warrant for a still or distilling apparatus could be issued and directed to the sheriff of the county.---As 25 of the prohibition law of 1917 (Acts 1917 p 15, 8356y Burns' Supp. 1921) authorized the issue of search warrants for violations of that law to "any officer having power to serve criminal process," a search warrant could be issued and directed to the sheriff of the county to search for a still and distilling apparatus, as authorized by 2, Acts 1923 p. 107. p. 519.
4. CRIMINAL LAW.---"Criminal process" is process which issues to compel a person to answer for a crime or misdemeanor.---"Criminal process" is process which issues to compel a person to answer for a crime or misdemeanor. p. 519.
5. CRIMINAL LAW.---Sheriff has power and authority to serve a search warrant directed to him.---It being one of the duties of a sheriff to serve criminal process, he has the power and authority to serve a search warrant directed to him. p. 519.
6. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.---Search warrant issued by justice of the peace not void because no record regarding it was made.---A search warrant issued by a justice of the peace is not void because no record regarding it was made in the office of the justice. p. 520.
7. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.---That a search warrant was taken away from the office of the justice that issued it would not invalidate the warrant or the search.---While a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace should be kept on file by him, after its return by the officer to whom it was directed. the fact that it was permitted to be taken from his office would not invalidate the warrant or the search made thereunder. p. 520.
8. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---In a prosecution for the unlawful possession of a still, it is not necessary to show that it had been used for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor.---In a prosecution for having possession of a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, it is not necessary to show that the still had ever been used to manufacture intoxicating liquor, as the statute defining the offense makes the possession of any still not registered according to the provisions of the laws of the United States prima facie evidence that it was possessed for the purpose of the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor. p. 521.
9. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---In a prosecution for unlawful possession of a still, it is a question for the jury whether the unsupported testimony of defendant overcame prima facie evidence by, state and inferences that could have been drawn from evidence.---In a prosecution for having possession of a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, it is for the jury to determine whether the unsupported testimony of the defendant has overcome the prima facie evidence by the state together with the inferences which the jury could have drawn from the evidence. p. 521.
From Marshall Circuit Court; John W. Kitch, Special Judge.
Alfred W. Mowlan was convicted of possession of two stills for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Wise & Wise, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General and George J. Muller, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction in a criminal prosecution. In the lower court, it was charged by affidavit that on or about July 28, 1923, at and in the county of Marshall, the appellant did then and there unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his control certain distilling apparatus, to wit: two stills, for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor in violation of the laws of this state.
The first error assigned by appellant is that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the affidavit. The crime charged is defined in ch. 33 of the Acts 1923 p 107. The title to same is: "An act concerning stills and distilling apparatus, and declaring an emergency." Appellant claims that the act is unconstitutional and void for the reason that the title thereof is fatally defective as it fails to show that the act defines any criminal offense, and that § 2 of the act is unconstitutional for the reason that the title makes no reference to part of the subject-matter thereof. These objections have been considered in former cases wherein it was held that the act is not unconstitutional for want of sufficient title. Lindsay v. State (1924), 195 Ind. 333, 145 N.E. 438; Shoemaker v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 433, 148 N.E. 403; Wallace v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 509, 149 N.E. 57; Napier v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 576, 149 N.E. 49; Gmeiner v. State (1925), ante 43, 149 N.E. 728. The affidavit was sufficient and the ruling on the motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial