People v. Giddings

• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: McALVAY
• Citation: 124 N.W. 546,159 Mich. 523
• Decision Date: 03 February 1910
• Parties: PEOPLE v. GIDDINGS.

159 Mich. 523
124 N.W. 546

PEOPLE
v.
GIDDINGS.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 3, 1910.

Exceptions from Circuit Court, Barry County; Clement Smith, Judge.

Homer Giddings was convicted of violating the local option law, and he brings exceptions. Reversed.

Argued before HOOKER, MOORE, McALVAY, BROOKE, and BLAIR, JJ.

[124 N.W. 546]

William W. Potter, Pros. Atty., for the People.

Thomas Sullivan, for defendant.

McALVAY, J.

Respondent was prosecuted and found guilty of furnishing intoxicating liquor to one James Foster in July, 1908, contrary to the provisions of the local option law of this state which was at the time in force in the county of Barry, within which the claimed offense was committed. The case is here upon exceptions before sentence.

The errors relied on, and upon which respondent asks for a reversal, are as follows: (a) That the court allowed evidence tending to show other like offenses; (b) that the court erred in certain portions of the charge as given, and in refusing to give certain requests of respondent to charge the jury; (c) and as to certain language of the prosector, in an argument in the presence of the jury, upon a motion made in behalf of respondent to dismiss the case, and in not granting such motion.

The facts in the case necessary to state in this opinion were that respondent who lives in Kalamazoo was, during the season of 1908, in control of a certain huckleberry swamp in Barry county, for the purpose of picking and marketing berries, and had in his employ 20 or more persons who were Indians or of Indian descent, as berry pickers and among their number one James Foster; that respondent occupied a tent on these premises, and the berry pickers, both men and women, occupied other tents in its vicinity. On the morning of the day in question, Foster went to respondent's tent outside of and near which was a stove set up used by respondent for cooking purposes. Near this stove was a table. Foster testified that he went to this tent to get a match to light his fire; that upon the table he saw a small bottle containing whisky, from which he poured a small quantity of the liquor, and went to the stove, where respondent then was, and respondent poured some hot water into the cup for him, and he drank the mixture. Foster says that he took the liquor of his own accord without any offer or request on the part of respondent. During the introduction of the case for the people evidence was admitted tending to show that, at or about the time of

[124 N.W. 547]

the alleged furnishing of the whisky to Foster, respondent furnished whisky and alcohol to others of these berry pickers. In his defense respondent denied that he ever furnished liquor of any kind to Foster, and never gave him any at the tent; that he brought no whisky to this tent, and did not remember that any whisky was there; that he had no clear alcohol, but did have a mixture of alcohol, ammonia, and glycerine for poisons and bee stings, and also a preparation known as ‘King of Pain’ which he thought had alcohol in it, and of which he gave Inman Foster a dose when he was sick and exhausted. He also denied having sold any liquor to Sprague, one of the witnesses...