State ex rel. Dorman v. Slayton

• Decision Date: 13 May 1948
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 927.
• Citation: 250 Ala. 535,35 So.2d 329
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DORMAN v. SLAYTON et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

35 So.2d 329

250 Ala. 535

STATE ex rel. DORMAN v. SLAYTON et al.

7 Div. 927.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 13, 1948

A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty Gen., and J. J. Cockrell, Sol., of Talladega, for appellant.

Knox Liles, Jones & Woolf, of Anniston, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

This appeal is from the final decree of the circuit court, in equity, denying relief to the state on its bill filed on the relation of the Deputy Solicitor of Calhoun County, seeking to condemn the automobile described in the bill on the ground that at the time of its seizure or prior thereto said vehicle was being used for the purpose of illegally transporting and conveying prohibited liquors and beverages from one point within the State of Alabama to another point within said state, on, along or upon a public highway in Calhoun County Alabama, and that the 'owner or operator or operators of said automobile were or was James Slayton and/or Gerald W Gilbert.'

Slayton and Gilbert were made respondents and Gilbert was served with process. So far as appears from the record Slayton was not served nor did he appear.

The evidence is without dispute that the automobile was in the possession of and being driven by J. W. Adams, age thirty, a G. I., returned from overseas in the World War II. When the automobile was seized and searched by the officers of the law on Highway 78 in Calhoun, a dry county, five cases of liquor in pints, purchased by Adams at the liquor store in Birmingham, were found in the trunk of the automobile.

The evidence goes to show that the automobile was the property of the defendant Gilbert who lived in Anniston, that he operated it in the daytime as a taxicab, that by arrangement with Adams the automobile was turned over to him to operate in the evening and at night as a taxicab, Adams to retain 30% of the earnings, the balance going to Gilbert. The evidence further goes to show that Gilbert, the owner, instructed Adams not to drive the automobile while drinking nor to allow liquors to be carried in any quantities in the automobile; that Adams violated Gilbert's instructions on the occasion by hauling liquor in the car and that Gilbert had no knowledge of its use for that purpose and had no interest in the liquor which was the property of Adams.

The state adduced testimony going to show that the character of Adams and the character of Gilbert as violators of the prohibition...