Parsons v. State
| Decision Date | 23 January 1901 |
| Docket Number | 11,423 |
| Citation | 85 N.W. 65,61 Neb. 244 |
| Parties | FRED PARSONS v. STATE OF NEBRASKA |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR from the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before FROST, J. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
W. M Morning, for plaintiff in error.
Constantine J. Smyth, Attorney General, and Willis D. Oldham, Deputy contra.
The defendant was convicted on two counts for selling intoxicating liquors without a license, and on one count for keeping such liquors for the purpose of sale and with the intention of selling and disposing of the same without a license or druggist's permit. It is argued that the conviction as to the last of the counts mentioned is wrongful and erroneous, because of the section of the statute under which the charge was made, providing that "the possession of any of said liquors shall be presumptive evidence of a violation of this chapter and subject the person to the fine prescribed in section eleven, unless after examination he shall satisfactorily account for and explain the possession thereof."
The validity of the statute is assailed on the ground that it denies the defendant a fair jury trial according to the course of the common law, by substituting the judgement of the legislature for the judgment of the jury as to the weight to be given to the evidence; and also violates the constitutional provision providing that no person shall in any criminal case, be compelled to give evidence against himself. That it is competent for the legislature to provide that certain facts, when established, shall be presumptive evidence of the material and ultimate fact to be proven in cases of this character, is well settled by current authority, and the validity of the identical section now assailed is affirmed in Durfee v. State, 53 Neb. 214, 73 N.W. 676. An exhaustive discussion of the subject and principles involved is found in People v. Cannon, 139 N.Y. 32, 34 N.E. 759. See, also, State v. Wilson, 15 R.I. 180, 1 A. 415. By section 20, chapter 50, it is made unlawful for any person to keep for the purpose of sale without license or druggist's permit any malt, spirituous or vinous liquors, and a penalty for the violation of the law is provided for. Any person who is found possessing intoxicating liquors with the intention of disposing of the same without a license or permit is deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and may on conviction be punished as provided by section eleven. The validity of this legislation is, we presume, unquestioned. Provisions follow for a search of premises for intoxicating liquors kept for sale without a license and in violation of law, and it is provided that, in the event of arrest of a person charged with unlawfully keeping such liquors for the purpose of sale, on the trial, "the possession of any such liquors shall be presumptive evidence of the violation of this chapter, and subject the person to the fine prescribed in section eleven, unless, after examination, he shall satisfactorily account for and explain the possession thereof, and that it was not kept for an unlawful purpose." If it be true that the legislature has the power to provide that the possession of intoxicating liquors, unexplained and unaccounted for by one not having a license or other permit for the sale thereof, shall be presumptive evidence of the violation of the chapter regulating the license and sale of such liquors, as has already been determined, and, as we think, correctly so, then, as it occurs to us, there is nothing in the act violative of the constitutional provision to the effect that no person, in any criminal case, shall be compelled to give evidence against...
To continue reading
Request your trial