State v. Rawlings
Citation | 232 Mo. 544,134 S.W. 530 |
Parties | STATE v. RAWLINGS. |
Decision Date | 14 February 1911 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Accused asked witness for the address of a dealer in whisky, but he could not give one. Accused obtained an address from another and informed witness, who requested accused to include in the order a half a gallon of whisky for him. Accused ordered the whisky and within five minutes after it reached his shop witness went there and took away his whisky. Accused received no profit or commission on the transaction. Held to justify the submission to the jury of the issue whether accused kept or delivered intoxicating liquors in violation of Rev. St. 1909, § 7227.
11. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 139)—OFFENSES—EVIDENCE.
A violation of Rev. St. 1909, § 7227, prohibiting any person from keeping, storing, or delivering for or to another in a local option county any intoxicating liquor, is not sustained by proof that accused ordered or received liquor for another, but the proof must show that accused kept, stored, or delivered liquor.
12. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 230)—LOCAL OPTION LAW—EVIDENCE—ADMISSIBILITY.
The state on a trial for keeping, storing, or delivering intoxicating liquors in violation of Rev. St. 1909, § 7227, may show that accused ordered or received intoxicating liquors for prosecutor, to prove that he also kept, stored, or delivered the same to prosecutor.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; W. N. Evans, Special Judge.
Victor L. Rawlings was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
James A. Potter, for appellant. E. W. Major, Atty. Gen., and Chas. G. Revelle, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant prosecutes this appeal from a judgment imposing upon him a fine of $300 for violating Laws 1907, p. 231 (now sections 7226-7229, Rev. St. 1909), regulating the keeping, storing, and delivery of intoxicating liquors in counties having adopted the local option law.
The evidence shows that the defendant was running a tailor shop in the city of Mt. Vernon, in Lawrence county, on the 1st day of December, 1909, and, desiring some intoxicating liquor, went to a butcher shop where one Will Williams was employed and asked Williams for the address of certain persons in Springfield, Mo., who dealt in whisky. Williams could not furnish the desired address, whereupon the defendant obtained it from another party, went back to the butcher shop, and informed Williams that he had procured the address and was going to make the order. Williams then requested defendant to include in the order a half gallon of whisky for him. Defendant ordered the whisky, which was in a few days delivered at his tailor shop by the expressman. Within a few minutes after the liquor reached defendant's shop, Williams went there, and, apparently without communicating with defendant, picked up and carried away his half gallon of whisky. Defendant received no commission or profit from the transaction.
The defendant makes a vigorous assault upon the constitutionality of the law, the sufficiency of the information, on the instructions given by the court, and its rulings upon the evidence introduced by the state.
For a proper understanding of the constitutional questions involved and the sufficiency of the information, we insert below the full title of this act and the first two sections of the act itself.
The information, omitting caption and affidavit, is as follows:
A comparison of the foregoing information with the law clearly demonstrates that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sherrill v. Brantley, 30783.
... ... State ex rel. Hawes v. Mason, 153 Mo. 49; State ex rel. Tel. Co. v. Atkinson, 271 Mo. 42; State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 870; 2 Lewis ... 26; St. Louis v. Tiefel, 42 Mo. 578; State v. Hurley, 258 Mo. 275; Berry v. Milling Co., 284 Mo. 190; State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 305; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 554; State v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131; State v. Revelle, 257 Mo. 529; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 233 Mo. 383; Hardware Co. v. Fisher, 269 Mo ... ...
-
Graff v. Priest
... ... (1) The prohibition and/or regulation of intoxicants is a matter within the power of the state. Sec. 1, 2, Twenty-first Amendment, Fed. Constitution; Samuels v. McCurdy, 45 S. Ct. 264, 267 U.S. 188, 69 L. Ed. 568; Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves, 84 L ... Fidelity Adjustment Co. v. Cook, 339 Mo. 45, 95 S.W. (2d) 1162; State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 305, 167 S.W. 500; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544, 134 S.W. 530; State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26, 105 S.W. 733; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131, 112 S.W. 520; Booth v. Scott, 276 Mo. 1, 205 ... ...
-
State v. Hedrick
... ... 4) do otherwise in so far as it is attempted to apply the act to residents of this state. The following authorities are apposite: In State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. loc. cit. 557, it is held that where the title of an act descends into details and attempts to point out a particular class of persons to which the law is intended to apply, it will not support a law leveled against a wholly different class of persons not mentioned in such title; and in ... ...
-
Star Square Auto Supply Co. v. Gerk
... ... (1) The title to the Motor Vehicle Act contains but one subject, which is clearly expressed. State v. Miller, 45 Mo. 495; State v. Tallo, 308 Mo. 594; State v. Hanson, 234 Mo. 583; State v. Brodnax, 288 Mo. 25. The provisions of Par. (b) of Sec. 25 ... Sec. 28, Art. 4, Mo. Constitution; State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 305; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544; State ex rel. v. Revelle, 257 Mo. 529; Southard v. Short, 8 S.W. (2d) 903; State v. Crites, 277 Mo. 194. (2) Section 25, respecting ... ...