State v. Louisiana Stores Co., Inc

• Decision Date: 04 May 1934
• Docket Number: 4815
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: STATE v. LOUISIANA STORES CO., Inc

154 So. 464

STATE v. LOUISIANA STORES CO., Inc

No. 4815

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

May 4, 1934

Rehearing denied June 4, 1934.

J. B Dawkins, of Monroe, for appellant.

Fink &amp Fink, of Monroe, for appellee.

OPINION

MILLS Judge.

This is a proceeding brought by the state, through its Supervisor of Public Accounts, to enforce the forfeiture of a lot of cigarettes and smoking tobacco found unstamped in the warehouse of defendant in Monroe, La.

The petition alleges that defendant had in its possession at its place of business, for the purpose of being sold, a lot of cigarettes and smoking tobacco, without stamps affixed as required by Act No. 4 of 1932. That in accordance with the provisions of said act, the agent of the Supervisor of Public Accounts seized the unstamped tobacco and now prays that defendant be ordered to show cause why it should not be forfeited and sold.

In answer to the rule which duly issued, defendant admits the possession of the tobacco and that it was unstamped, but avers that it owns the chain of retail stores known as "Jitney-Jungle Stores," and merely maintains at Monroe a warehouse and distribution center for them. That it had ordered the required stamps which it intended to affix to the tobacco before it was offered for sale. That despite the fact that the agent for the supervisor was informed of these facts and verified same by calling his superior at Baton Rouge, by whom he was informed that the stamps had been ordered and were being forwarded, he persisted in making the seizure, which defendant contends is illegal under the circumstances and should be dissolved and its merchandise returned.

The testimony bears out the allegations of the answer that the retail stores are owned by defendant company, and that it maintains the warehouse in Monroe for distribution purposes only to its stores, and that no tobacco is sold from it. The agent had made a partial inspection of the premises without discovering the unstamped tobacco, which was stored in unbroken cartons separate from the stamped tobacco intended for immediate distribution. Before completing the search, he inquired if there was any unstamped tobacco and was frankly told that there was, and shown that seized. It was explained that the tobacco was being held awaiting the arrival of the stamps which had been ordered. This statement was verified as alleged above. The agent saw no tobacco being sold and none displayed for sale in the warehouse.

Part of the tobacco arrived by rail and was delivered October 30th, and the remainder arrived and was delivered November 3d. The stamps were ordered November 6th, and were received November 9th. The defendant's representatives testify that there was no intention to sell or distribute the tobacco until the stamps had been affixed.

In the lower court there was judgment rejecting the demands of plaintiff, and releasing the seizure, from which plaintiff has perfected this appeal.

Section 8, Act No. 4 of 1932, states its object to be: ...