State v. Bostock

Decision Date09 April 1928
Docket Number21003.
Citation266 P. 173,147 Wash. 402
PartiesSTATE v. BOSTOCK et al.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Guy C. Alston, Judge.

Maude and Ed Bostock were convicted of unlawfully having in their possession intoxicating liquor, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Henry Clay Agnew and W. E. Barnhart, both of Seattle, for appellants.

C. T Roscoe and Charles R. Denney, both of Everett, for the State.

PARKER J.

The defendants Maude and Ed Bostock, with Fred Hanson, were, by information filed in the superior court for Snohomish county jointly charged with the misdemeanor of unlawfully having in their possession intoxicating liquor, in that----

'They, the said Maude Bostock, Ed Bostock and Fred Hanson, in Snohomish county, state of Washington, on or about the 24th day of November, 1926, did willfully and unlawfully have in their possession a quantity of intoxicating liquor other than alcohol, to wit, about one quart of beer, about one-half gallon of wine, and about one-fourth gallon of moonshine whisky. * * *'

Hanson pleaded guilty. Maude and Ed Bostock were jointly tried in the superior court, sitting with a jury, and by the jury both found guilty, upon which judgments of fine and jail sentence were rendered against each of them, from which each has appealed to this court.

The principal contention here made in behalf of appellants is that the trial court erred to their prejudice in refusing to give the jury their requested instruction as follows:

'You are further instructed that the term 'possession' as herein used means something more than the mere taking in the hand for the purpose of immediately drinking the thing thus possessed upon the express invitation of the owner so to do.'

The trial court refused to give to the jury this instruction, and we do not find in the instruction given by the court any language suggesting this to be the law. Our decision in State v. Jones, 114 Wash. 144, 194 P. 585, clearly holds the law of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor to be in substance as stated in this requested instruction. In that decision, referring to the Laws of 1917, chapter 19 pages 60, 61, now embodied in sections 7328-7329, Rem. Comp Stat., relating to unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, Judge Tolman, speaking for the court, said:

'Taking these two sections together, in the absence of anything else upon the subject of the mere possession alone, leads to the conclusion that the Legislature had in mind only the possession of liquor in such quantities and under such conditions as would make it available for unlawful transportation or sale, and did not intend to make a
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Town of Normal v. Bowsky, 4-85-0557
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 17 Abril 1986
    ...an alcoholic beverage container solely to drink it. See, e.g., State v. Williams (1926), 117 Or. 238, 243 P. 563; State v. Bostock (1928), 147 Wash. 402, 266 P. 173; State v. Nelson (Mo.App.1929), 21 S.W.2d The better view, and one more consonant with Illinois law, is stated by decisions su......
  • State v. Hornaday, 5944-III-8
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 2 Agosto 1984
    ...or sale, and did not intend to make a criminal of every person who might partake of a friend's hospitality. See also State v. Bostock, 147 Wash. 402, 266 P. 173 (1928). In contrast, the obvious intent of RCW 66.44.270 is to prohibit all forms of possession of liquor by an underage person un......
  • State v. Hornaday
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 16 Enero 1986
    ...constructive as well as actual possession. Constructive possession of liquor denotes control of the substance. Cf. State v. Bostock, 147 Wash. 402, 404, 266 P. 173 (1928); State v. Davis, 16 Wash.App. 657, 659, 558 P.2d 263 (1977) (constructive possession of marijuana requires a showing of ......
  • State v. Gohn
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 4 Marzo 1931
    ... ... evidence was adduced reasonably raising a defensive issue, ... therefore the appellant was entitled to instructions ... affirmatively presenting such issue ... Appellant ... relies for reversal upon State v. Bostock, 147 Wash ... 402, 266 P. 173, and State v. Jones, 114 Wash. 144, ... 194 P. 585, 587. In the latter case we said that ... 'possession,' as used in the statute defining the ... offense of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, '* ... * * means something more than ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT