State v. Gens

• Decision Date: 12 July 1917
• Docket Number: 9753.
• Citation: 93 S.E. 139,107 S.C. 448
• Parties: STATE v. GENS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

93 S.E. 139

107 S.C. 448

STATE v. GENS.

No. 9753.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 12, 1917

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Jasper County; James E. Peurifoy, Judge.

William Gens was convicted of having in his possession an illegal amount of intoxicating liquors, and appeals. Exceptions sustained, and new trial granted.

Fraser J., dissenting in part.

H Klugh Purdy, of Ridgeland, for appellant.

Geo Warren, Sol., of Hampton, for the State.

WATTS J.

The defendant appellant was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced before Judge Peurifoy and a jury at the July term of court, 1916, for Jasper county. The facts of the case are that the defendant went to Savannah on business, and several persons got him to bring them back some whisky. He brought the whisky in two suit cases, and on his arrival at Ridgeland was arrested without a warrant by the sheriff and his deputy, and the two suit cases containing the whisky were taken from him. One gallon of the whisky belonged to him and the other to parties who had sent him for it.

Exceptions 3, 4, and 5 complain of error on the part of his honor in excluding as incompetent and irrelevant evidence that defendant was transporting liquor from Savannah, Ga., for other persons, not more than one gallon for the personal use of any one person, and in refusing to allow defendant's witnesses to testify that this liquor was theirs, and that they had employed the defendant to transport it for them, and in refusing to allow the defendant's witnesses to explain possession or ownership of the liquor in excess of one gallon. The sixth exception complains of error in charging the jury that defendant was guilty if he had in his possession more than one gallon of liquor. These exceptions must be sustained.

If the defendant was a private carrier for hire, or if as a favor he brought in for a friend not more than one gallon of liquor for one person's personal use during one calendar month, with no intent to violate the law, then he had the right to do so. In other words, a private person or a private carrier for hire have the same rights and privileges to bring in and transport liquor as a common carrier for hire. The same rules and restrictions apply to a private carrier for hire as a common carrier, no more or less.

The other exceptions complain of error on the part of his honor in not granting a new trial on the ground that certain large posters condemning liquor traffic were held before the jury by several ladies during the trial or part of it; that the women were in the courthouse and sat directly in front of the jury and on the left of the Judge; that the jurors saw and read the posters. That such a state of facts could exist in a court of justice is almost inconceivable and be permitted to escape the attention of the officers of the court and the presiding judge. Generally nothing escapes the eyes of the court officials; if one officer fails to see anything improper during the progress of the case, another will see it, and either put a stop to it himself or call the court's attention to it. The action of the women was highly improper, in that it was an attempt to impede justice however innocent on their part, and deny to the defendant a fair and impartial trial, guaranteed to him by the law of the land, an attempt to influence a sworn jury to arrive at a verdict improperly, and to be influenced by outside influence, trying the case by manufactured...