State v. Bostock
Decision Date | 09 April 1928 |
Docket Number | 21003. |
Citation | 266 P. 173,147 Wash. 402 |
Parties | STATE v. BOSTOCK et al. |
Court | Washington 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.
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:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Town of Normal v. Bowsky, 4-85-0557
...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
...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
...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
... ... 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 ... ...