Parker v. Marsh, 4-9925

• Decision Date: 24 November 1952
• Docket Number: No. 4-9925,4-9925
• Parties: PARKER, Commissioner of Revenues, v. MARSH.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 624

252 S.W.2d 624

221 Ark. 229

PARKER, Commissioner of Revenues, v. MARSH.

No. 4-9925.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Nov. 24, 1952.

O. T. Ward, Little Rock, for appellant.

Wendell Utley, Magnolia, for appellee.

ROBINSON, Justice.

The Commissioner of Revenues for the State of Arkansas filed suit, alleging: 'That the defendant, George D. Marsh, is indebted to the State of Arkansas for tax on alcoholic beverages purchased in the State of Louisiana and brought into the State of Arkansas for sale or consumption from the date of March 13, 1950 to September 8, 1950 in the total sum of $4,437.00'. It is also alleged that, according to the provisions of Sec. 84-1734, Ark.Stats., the defendant is liable for three times the amount of the taxes said to have been avoided. There was a directed verdict for the defendant, and the commissioner has appealed.

It was stipulated between the parties that copies of transportation permits issued by the Revenue Department of the State of Louisiana to the defendant could be used as evidence in behalf of the plaintiff. These permits, numbering about eighty-four, were accordingly introduced in evidence. The plaintiff then attempted to show that the defendant had been convicted for selling liquor in Columbia County and that he had the reputation of illegally dealing in liquor. The defendant's objection to the introduction of this testimony was sustained. To support his contention that this evidence was admissible, appellant relies on Ark.Stats. § 48-940, which provides: 'In any prosecution or proceeding for any violation of this act, the general reputation of defendant or defendants for moonshining, bootlegging, or being engaged in the illicit manufacture of, or trade in, intoxicating liquors, shall be admissible in evidence against said defendant or defendants.' This is a part of Act 108 of the Acts of 1935; and it is clear from the act, as a whole, that the above quoted section applies to criminal prosecutions and not civil suits.

Next, appellant offered to introduce evidence to the effect that the defendant was a holder of a federal tax stamp and, further, that he had admitted to Mr. Merrick, a Federal Alcoholic Control Agent, that he was transporting whiskey from the State of Louisiana into the State of Arkansas, but that all the whiskey bore a federal stamp. The court sustained the objection to introduction of this testimony. This evidence should have been admitted. The fact that the defendant had a federal license to sell liquor in Arkansas was a circumstance tending to prove the allegations in the complaint. Where one obtains a federal license to sell whiskey, it is reasonable to infer that he is engaged in such business and that he will, therefore, obtain and sell liquor. In Appling v. State, 88 Ark....