State v. Miller

• Citation: 108 S.E. 487
• Parties: STATE. v. MILLER.
• Decision Date: 20 September 1921
• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia

108 S.E. 487

STATE.

v.MILLER.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Sept. 20, 1921.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words nnd Phrases, First and Second Series, Liquor.]

Joinder of two or more offenses of the same general nature in an indictment is not good ground of demurrer.

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Case Certified from Circuit Court, Roane County.

Holl Miller was indicted for violation of the prohibition law. The demurrer to the indictment was overruled, and the case certified. Ruling on demurrer affirmed.

E. T. England, Atty. Gen., R. A. Blessing, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John W. Lance, Pros. Atty., of Spencer, for the State.

Thos. P. Ryan, of Spencer, for defendant.

RITZ, P. Defendant was indicted in the circuit court of Roane county upon the charge that he did unlawfully sell, give, offer, expose, keep, and store for sale and gift liquors. A demurrer to the indictment was overruled, and the questions arising thereon certified to this court.

The indictment is In the form prescribed by section 3 of chapter 108 of the Acts of 1919. The ground of the demurrer is that the indictment does not necessarily charge an offense, for the reason that the word "liquors, " which the defendant is charged with having dealt in, is too uncertain to make him guilty of any crime under the law; and, second, that the indictment is bad for duplicity, in that several separate offenses are charged therein.

It is quite true that the word "liquors" used in this indictment in its broad sense may include other substances than those referred to in the statute, but this form of indictment is prescribed by the law itself. The word "liquors, " used in the prohibition statutes, has a well-defined significance. Section 1 defines the term, and it says just what it means when used in that law. No matter what the word may signify in other connections, its meaning in the prohibition laws is clearly and definitely determined by the language of section 1. The Legislature determined to inhibit the manufacture and sale of a number of different beverages, and for convenience adopted one term which included all or any of them, and this is the use made of the word "liquors" in the law, so that when the word "liquors" is used it is limited in its meaning to the things mentioned in section 1. By the very terms of section 1 it cannot be given any broader or narrower meaning. The defendant cites the cases of State v. Durr, 69 W. Va. 251, 71 S. E. 767, 46...