State v. Fulks

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtGantt
Citation207 Mo. 26,105 S.W. 733
Decision Date19 November 1907
PartiesSTATE v. FULKS.
105 S.W. 733
207 Mo. 26
STATE
v.
FULKS.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
November 19, 1907.

STATUTES — VALIDITY — TITLE.

The local option law of 1887 (Laws 1887, p. 179; Rev. St. 1899, c. 22, art. 3 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1733]) was entitled an act to prevent the evils of intemperance by local option in any county of the state and cities of 2,500 inhabitants or more by submitting the question of prohibiting the "sale" of intoxicating liquors to the voters to provide penalties for its violation, and for other purposes. Section 1 provided for an election to determine whether liquors should be "sold" within the county or city, and section 4 required the ballots to be for or against "sales" of intoxicating liquors. Held, that a section of such act prohibiting the giving away of intoxicating liquors in a county or city where such act was in force, in so far as it attempted to prohibit the gift of a drink of liquor by a private person as a mere act of courtesy or hospitality, disconnected with any business transaction, was in violation of Const. art. 4, § 28 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 185], providing that no bill should contain more than one subject, which should be clearly expressed in its title.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Stoddard County; J. L. Fort, Judge.

John Fulks was convicted of violating the local option law by making a gift of whisky, and he appeals. Reversed, and discharged.

Henry S. Shaw, for appellant. The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry, for the State.

GANTT, J.


On the 6th day of July, 1906, the prosecuting attorney of Stoddard county filed an information, duly verified in the office of the circuit clerk of said county, against the defendant, wherein he informed the court that on the 1st day of December, 1903, the act of the Legislature, commonly known as the "Local Option Law," to wit, article 3 of chapter 22 of the Revised Statutes of 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1733], had been duly adopted, and was in force as the law of the state within and for the county of Stoddard and state of Missouri, and that there was no city within said county having a population of 2,500 inhabitants or more, and that on or about the 25th of June, 1906, the defendant did then and there at said Stoddard county unlawfully give away intoxicating liquor, to wit, one drink of whisky, and that the said John Fulks did not then and there have any license of any kind authorizing him to give away the same, and that said gift of said whisky was then and there made without any lawful authority whatever to give away the same, contrary to the provisions of said local option law, against the peace and dignity of the state. The defendant was arrested and duly arraigned and pleaded not guilty, and at the December term, 1906, of said court, was put upon trial and convicted and fined $300. From that conviction he appeals to this court. The evidence on the part of the state to sustain the information tended to prove that the defendant John Fulks was engaged in the real estate business in the city of Dexter, a city containing less than 2,500 inhabitants, in Stoddard county. He was in the habit of buying intoxicating liquors at places outside of said county from persons legally authorized to sell it, and of keeping it in his office and at his residence for his own personal use. He was not engaged in the sale or disposition of intoxicating liquor for gain at the time the information was filed, nor at any time while he had been a resident of Dexter, some five or six years before the 25th of June, 1906. He did not offer or give to any person any drink or ask them to drink of his liquor with any view, intention, or design to further any business transaction, to induce any one to transact business or refrain from any competition with him, or directly or indirectly, remotely or otherwise, to obtain anything of value by any gift or disposition of his personal stock of

105 S.W. 734

liquor. He did treat or give liquor to some of his personal friends solely as an act of courtesy or friendship during the year previous to the filing of the information. Under this state of facts, the circuit court instructed the jury that if they believed and found from the evidence in the case beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant in the county of Stoddard and state of Missouri at any time within one year next before the 25th of June, 1906, gave away intoxicating liquor, they would find the defendant guilty as charged in the information, and assess his punishment at a fine of not less than $300 nor more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than six months, or by both said fine and imprisonment. The court also instructed the jury that on or since the 1st day of December, 1903, article 3 of chapter 22 of the Revised Statutes of 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1733], generally known as the "Local Option Law," had been and was in force in Stoddard county, Mo., as it was mutually agreed by both the prosecuting attorney and the defendant. Court also defined intoxicating liquor as meaning fermented, vinous, and spirituous liquors, or any composition of which fermented, vinous, or spirituous liquor forms a part. The court also gave a liberal instruction defining reasonable doubt, and directed the jury that they must be satisfied of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Within four days after the rendition of the verdict finding him guilty, the defendant moved the court for a new trial because the verdict was against the evidence and against the law, and because the court erred in refusing instructions No. 2, 3, and 4 prayed by the defendant. Which instructions were as follows: No. 2: "The court instructs the jury that if they believe and find from the evidence in the cause that the defendant, John Fulks, was not on the date mentioned in the information, nor for one year prior thereto, had been engaged in the selling of intoxicating liquor in the county of Stoddard, but that he had been, at the times mentioned, engaged in a business or occupation not connected directly or indirectly, in the sale or disposal of intoxicating liquors for gain — that is to say, solely in the business of buying and selling real estate — and that defendant did on one or more occasions during the time above mentioned have and keep at his place of business intoxicating liquor for his own individual use, and did give away to one or more of the witnesses who have testified in this cause drinks out of his individual supply, solely as an act of courtesy or friendship, and not with a purpose of deriving any pecuniary profit or gain by so doing, or to further any commercial or business enterprise, or to induce any one to trade or transact business with him, you will find the defendant not guilty." No. 3: "The court instructs the jury that, under the law and facts in this case, they will acquit the defendant for the reason that the law under which this prosecution is had is unconstitutional and void because it contravenes the provisions of section 28, art. 4, section 11, art. 2, section 32, art. 2, of the Constitution of the state of Missouri, article 4 and article 9 of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and section 2, art. 4, of the Constitution of the United States." No. 4: "Now comes defendant, and moves the court to discharge him of the charge and information now pending against him, for the reason that the law, to wit, chapter 22, art. 3, Rev. St. 1899, of the state of Missouri, upon which this charge and information is founded, is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • State v. Hedrick, No. 23106.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 3, 1922
    ...this would not give validity to a section which sought to prohibit individuals from selling impure dairy products; so in State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26, it was held that the title which referred only to the sale of intoxicants was not broad enough to authorize a provision in the body of the act......
  • Graff v. Priest, No. 40171.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 21, 1947
    ...339 Mo. 45, 95 S.W. (2d) 1162; State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 305, 167 S.W. 500; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544, 134 S.W. 530; State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26, 105 S.W. 733; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131, 112 S.W. 520; Booth v. Scott, 276 Mo. 1, 205 S.W. 633. (8) There was no error in the finding a......
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...258 Mo. 541; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544; State v. Great Western Co., 171 Mo. 634; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131; State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26; State v. McEniry, 269 Mo. 228; State ex inf. v. Borden, 164 Mo. 221; State ex rel. Greene County v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356; City of Kansas v. Pay......
  • State v. Rowe, No. 30129.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 19, 1930
    ...We need not decide that question, although there is Courtesy and authority on the subject. [State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. Hospitality. 26, 105 S.W. 733, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 430.] The act of defendant was neither a social act, nor an act of courtesy or hospitality. It was an unfriendly and hostile ac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • State v. Hedrick, No. 23106.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 3, 1922
    ...this would not give validity to a section which sought to prohibit individuals from selling impure dairy products; so in State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26, it was held that the title which referred only to the sale of intoxicants was not broad enough to authorize a provision in the body of the act......
  • Graff v. Priest, No. 40171.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 21, 1947
    ...339 Mo. 45, 95 S.W. (2d) 1162; State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 305, 167 S.W. 500; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544, 134 S.W. 530; State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26, 105 S.W. 733; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131, 112 S.W. 520; Booth v. Scott, 276 Mo. 1, 205 S.W. 633. (8) There was no error in the finding a......
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...258 Mo. 541; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544; State v. Great Western Co., 171 Mo. 634; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131; State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26; State v. McEniry, 269 Mo. 228; State ex inf. v. Borden, 164 Mo. 221; State ex rel. Greene County v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356; City of Kansas v. Pay......
  • State v. Rowe, No. 30129.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 19, 1930
    ...We need not decide that question, although there is Courtesy and authority on the subject. [State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. Hospitality. 26, 105 S.W. 733, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 430.] The act of defendant was neither a social act, nor an act of courtesy or hospitality. It was an unfriendly and hostile ac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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