State v. Green

• Decision Date: 01 July 1911
• Citation: 89 S.C. 132,71 S.E. 847
• Parties: STATE. v. GREEN.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

89 S.C. 132

71 S.E. 847

STATE.

v.GREEN.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 1, 1911.

1.Intoxicating Liquors (§ 139^*)—"Keep in Possession"—Construction—"Store."The words "store and keep in possession, " as used in 26 St. at Large, p. 60, prohibiting the unlawful accepting, receiving, storing, and keeping in possession alcoholic liquors contrary to law, involve the idea of continuity or habit, and have no different construction or meaning in counties where the sale of liquor is prohibited from that which they have in counties where liquors are lawfully sold through dispensaries.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, seeIntoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 149;Dec. Dig. § 139.*

For other definitions, seeWords and Phrases, vol. 4, pp. 3914-3923; vol. 8, p. 7699; vol. 7, pp. 6672-6675; vol. 8, p. 7805.]

2.Intoxicating Liquors (§ 139^2-*)—Keeping in Possession—Instructions.

In a prosecution under 26 St. at Large, p. 60, relating to the unlawful keeping, storing or receiving of alcoholic liquors, the court erred in charging that it was unlawful for one to have liquor in his possession in a prohibition county without reference to the quantity or purpose.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, seeIntoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 149;Dec. Dig. § 139.*]

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Sumter County; R. W. Memminger, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Lloyd Green was convicted of unlawfully receiving, storing, and keeping in possession alcoholic liquors contrary to the statutes, and he appeals.Reversed.

C. Capers Smith, for appellant.

P. H. Stoll, Sol., for the State.

HYDRICK, J.The appellant was convicted on an indictment charging that he"did unlawfully accept, receive, store, and keep in possession" alcoholic liquors, contrary to the statute.He admitted having liquor in his possession, but claimed that he had it only for his own personal use.He requested the court to charge the jury that the term "storing and keeping in possession, " used in the statute, involves the idea of continuity or habit.The court charged that that was correct under the old dispensary law, when the state engaged in the sale of liquors, and that it would be correct as applied to the law in

any county in the state in which there is now a dispensary, but that in a county which has no dispensary (such as Sumter, where the indictment is laid), the mere having liquor in possession, no matter for what purpose, nor how small a quantity it may be, is illegal.

We think his honor erred in holding that the words "store and keep in possession" have a different meaning and construction in counties where the sale of liquor is prohibited from that which they have in counties where liquors are lawfully sold through dispensaries.We find no warrant in reason or authority for such variable construction of a statute.In Easley v. Pegg, 63 S. C. 102, 41 S. E. 18, it was held that "the offense of storing and keeping in possession contraband liquors involves the idea of continuity or habit."The same construction and meaning must be given the same words used in the act of 1909(...