State v. Perrin

• Decision Date: 16 November 1923
• Docket Number: 17860.
• Citation: 127 Wash. 193,220 P. 772
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. PERRIN et al.

220 P. 772

127 Wash. 193

STATE v. PERRIN et al.

No. 17860.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 16, 1923

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Ronald, Judge.

William Perrin and J. J. Stack were convicted of maintaining a place for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and they appeal. Affirmed.

John F. Dore, of Seattle, for appellants.

Malcolm Douglas, Bert C. Ross and Chester A. Batchelor, all of Seattle, for the State.

BRIDGES J.

The information charged that the appellants, together with one White did, on a certain day, in King county, Wash., 'willfully unlawfully, and feloniously open up, conduct, and maintain a place for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, to wit the place known as the North End Inn situated near the north city limits of the city of Seattle.' The appellants were found guilty, and have appealed from a sentence imposed by the court.

They each contend that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. There was testimony from which the jury might have concluded that the appellant Perrin was the owner and proprietor of the place charged in the information, which was, generally speaking, an eating house and dance hall, and that the appellant Stack and one White were waiters at the dining tables; that many people were in the habit of resorting to this place, particularly at night; that White actually served such intoxicating liquors as the testimony showed had actually been sold; that Stack was present in the dining room, and knew that intoxicating liquors were being sold and consumed there; that on one occasion a patron had called for whisky, but that White refused to give it to him and the patron then complained to Stack about it, and was told by him that he would be served, and that later Stack told White, the waiter, to serve the customer with liquor, which was done; that when the place was raided the police officers found Stack in the backyard or near the house breaking two bottles of intoxicating liquor, and thus destroying the contents; that Perrin was in the dining room on many occasions when intoxicating liquor was being sold and drunk, and was in a position to know that such was being done; that there was considerable drunkenness in the place, and that the appellant Perrin was present, and knew thereof.

We have no doubt that there was sufficient testimony to submit the question to the jury as to the guilt of the appellants. It is contended, however, that because appellant Stack was only a waiter and had no financial interest in or proprietorship of the place in question he cannot be found guilty of being a jointist. This exact question has been disposed of against appellants' contention by the recent decision of this court in State v. Pistona (Wash.) 219 P. 859.

It is contended that instruction No. 2 given by the court to the jury was erroneous. It reads as follows:

'In order to convict any of the defendants of the offense charged the state must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that the North End Inn stated in the information was, at the time, or about the time, charged, a place conducted or maintained for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; and, second, that the defendants, either as principals or agents, conducted and maintained the said place for the purpose of the sale of such intoxicating liquor.'

It is complained that since the information charges the apellants only as principals it was error to tell the jury they might be found guilty as agents. This question is no longer an open one in this state. It is decided contrary to appellants' contention in State v. Rousseau, 111 Wash. 533, 191 P. 634; State v. Burgess, 111 Wash. 537, 191 P. 635; State v. Malanca, 121 Wash. 128, 208 P. 258.

Complaint is also made of instruction No. 3, wherein the court told...