Rund v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 11 June 1908 |
| Citation | 108 Va. 873,61 S.E. 792 |
| Parties | RUND. v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
1. Intoxicating Liquors—Criminal Prosecutions—Indictment—Sufficiency.
An indictment charging a violation of Acts 1901-02, p. 601, c. 516, for the suppression of tippling houses and the illegal sale of liquors in designated counties, which alleges that accused sold and delivered intoxicating liquors within one of the designated counties, is sufficient, without an averment of the precise time when or the person to whom the sale was made.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 29, Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 227, 237-239.]
2. Same—Evidence—Admissibility.
On the trial for a violation of Acts 1901-02. p. 601, c. 516, for the suppression of tippling houses and the illegal sale of liquors in designated counties, and which declares that the fact that any person has a license as a retail dealer from the United States shall be evidence of selling by retail, etc., a copy from the record in the office of the collector of internal revenue showing that accused held a United States license as a retail liquor dealer for a year was admissible.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 29, Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 298, 298 1/2.]
3. Same—Presumptions.
Under Acts 1901-02, p. 601, c. 516, for the suppression of tippling houses and the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors in designated counties, which declares in section 5 (page 602) that the fact that any person has a license as a retail dealer from the United States and no license from the state shall be evidence of selling by retail without a license, and Act March 15, 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 411, c. 236), providing that the possession of the United States internal revenue tax receipt for the sale of liquors shall be prima facie evidence of the sale of liquor, etc., a disputable presumption of guilt of accused is shown on proof that he held a United States license as a retail liquor dealer, and in the absence of exculpatory evidence a conviction is proper.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 29, Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 278, 321.]
4. Criminal Law —Trial —Right to Confront Witnesses—Constitutional Law.
Bill of Rights, Const. art. 1, § 8 (Code 1904, p. ccix), guaranteeing the right of accused to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, does not exclude proper documentary evidence, and Acts 1901-02, p. 601, c. 516, and Act March 15, 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 411, c. 236), relating to the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, are not unconstitutional on the ground that proof that accused held a United States license as a retail liquor dealer shall be presumptive proof of his guilt, which proof may be furnished by a copy of the record in the office of a United States internal revenue collector.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, § 1540.]
Error to Circuit Court, Lancaster County.
H. H. Runde was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, and he brings error. Affirmed.
T. J. Downing and J. W. Chinn, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. A. Anderson, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
At the May term, 1907, of the circuit court of Lancaster county, the plaintiff in error, H. H. Runde, was prosecuted to conviction under an indictment for unlawfully selling and delivering intoxicating liquors and mixtures thereof in Whitestone magisterial district, in that county.
The demurrer to the indictment, on the grounds that it does not allege the precise time when, or the person to whom, the sale was made, was properly overruled.
The prosecution was had under a special act to suppress tippling houses and the illegal sale or traffic in ardent spirits in the counties of Lancaster, etc., approved April 2, 1902. Acts 1901-02, p. 001, c. 516. The sufficiency of the indictment is sustained by Fletcher's Case, 106 Va. 840, 56 S. E. 149, and White's Case (Va.) 59 S. E. 1101; the former a prosecution under the general revenue laws of the state, and the latter under a special act to suppress tippling, etc., in the county of Mathews. The same principle was applied in both cases, and it was held that "an indictment charging that the defendant did 'unlawfully sell and deliver intoxicating liquors.' " is sufficient.
White's Case is also authority for the admission in evidence of a copy from the record in the office of the collector of internal revenue for the Second district of Virginia, showing that the accused held a United States license as a retail liquor dealer from July 1, 1906, to June 30, 1907.
The assignments of error on instructions and to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial rest on the alleged insufficiency of the mere possession by the accused of the internal revenue tax receipt for the sale of liquor to sustain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pine v. Commonwealth
...a rule of evidence. That such rules may be established by the Legislature is well settled both here and elsewhere. Runde v. Commonwealth, 108 Va. 873, 61 S. E. 792; Commonwealth v. Austin, 97 Mass. 595; Fruide v. State, 66 Neb. 244, 92 N. W. 320; State v. Intoxicating Liquors, 80 Me. 57, 12......
- Cochean v. Commonwealth
-
Bracey v. Commonwealth.*
...and sworn to by the state chemist, shall be evidence in all prosecutions under the revenue laws of this state." In Runde v. Commonwealth, 108 Va. 873, 61 S. E. 792, this court says: "The provision of the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the right of the accused in all criminalprosecutions to be......
-
Griggs v. State, 4 Div. 251
...145 N.C. 432, 58 S.E. 1002; Hargrove v. State, 8 Okl.Cr. 487, 129 P. 74; Brinkley v. State, 125 Tenn. 371, 143 S.W. 1120; Runde v. Com., 108 Va. 873, 61 S.E. 792. Particularly is this true in view of the warning carried on the stamp itself that: 'This stamp does not authorize the commenceme......