State v. Douglas

• Decision Date: 02 December 1922
• Docket Number: 17529.
• Citation: 122 Wash. 387,210 P. 778
• Parties: STATE v. DOUGLAS.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

210 P. 778

122 Wash. 387

STATE v. DOUGLAS.

No. 17529.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 2, 1922

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Otis W. Brinker, Judge.

S. E Douglas was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

M. H Ingersoll, Tucker & Hyland, and Ford Q. Elvidge, all of Seattle, for appellant.

Malcolm Douglas, T. H. Patterson, and Chester A. Batchelor, all of Seattle, for the State.

PARKER, C.J.

A complaint was filed in a justice court of King county charging that the defendant, Douglas, in that county, on October 11, 1921, did 'unlawfully manufacture intoxicating liquor, to wit, a liquid containing alcohol and capable of being used as a beverage and commonly known as moonshine or corn whisky, for the purpose of sale, barter and exchange thereof. * * *' He was tried and adjudged guilty in the justice court as charged, from which judgment he appealed to the superior court of that county, wherein he was again tried and adjudged guilty as charged from which judgment he has appealed to this court.

It is first contended in behalf of appellant that the evidence introduced upon the trial is not sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment rendered against him. Appellant offered no evidence upon the trial. That which was introduced in behalf of the state was ample to warrant the jury in believing the following facts as established thereby: In August, 1921, appellant rented a dwelling house in Seattle from one Lennon, paying two months' rent therefor. Appellant immediately took possession of the house under the tenancy so created. Later appellant paid to Lennon another month's rent for the house. Upon paying the rent appellant told Lennon that his name was Martin Jones, which was not his true name. This tenancy continued until after the time appellant is alleged to have committed the offense charged against him. At the time charged, officers armed with a search warrant entered the house, and found therein a large still in operation. They also found therein a quantity of corn mash and some corn whisky. The still, the mash, the whisky, and the almost total absence of household furniture plainly indicated that the house was being used exclusively for the manufacture of whisky. The officers did not find any person in the house, and there is no direct evidence in the record that appellant was ever personally present in the house operating the still; nor is there any direct evidence as to who was personally present operating the still. A day or two later appellant was arrested by the officers at his home in another part of the city, at which time the officers found some corn whisky in appellant's home of the same kind they had found with the still in the house which he had rented from Lennon. Appellant sold intoxicating liquor to a witness on one or two occasions during the time of his tenancy of the house in which the still, mash, and liquor were found by the officers. Appellant also left with this witness, apparently for safe-keeping, a quantity of liquor within a day or two of the time he is charged with committing the offense here in question. These facts, the existence of which there was ample evidence to warrant the jury in believing, we think leave little to be said in the way of argument against the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. The substance of the argument made in appellant's behalf is simply that these facts are insufficient, in view of the absence of direct evidence, that appellant was at any time personally in charge of the manufacture of liquor at the place in question. It seems quite plain to us that such argument is wholly unavailing as against the chain of circumstances here shown pointing to appellant's guilt.

Testimony was introduced by the prosecution tending to show that appellant had sold liquor near the time charged, but not at the house where the still, mash and liquor were found, as we have already noticed. This testimony was...