State v. Rawlings

Citation232 Mo. 544,134 S.W. 530
PartiesSTATE v. RAWLINGS.
Decision Date14 February 1911
CourtUnited 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.

BROWN, J.

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.

"An act to prohibit persons running order houses from delivering intoxicating liquors to persons having no license to deal in same, and to prohibit the keeping, storing for, or delivering to another person intoxicating liquors in local option counties, and providing penalties for the violations thereof.

"Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons not a licensed dramshop keeper or by law authorized to sell liquor as a wholesaler, to order for, receive, store, keep or deliver as the agent or otherwise, of any other person, intoxicating liquors of any kind.

"Sec. 2. No person shall keep, store or deliver for or to another person, in any county that has adopted or may hereafter adopt the local option law, any intoxicating liquors of any kind whatsoever."

The information, omitting caption and affidavit, is as follows: "Comes now Archie L. Hilpirt, prosecuting attorney within and for Lawrence county, Mo., and acting herein under his oath of office and upon knowledge, information, and belief, informs the court that on or about the 11th day of November, 1907, the act of the Legislature of the state of Missouri approved April 5, 1887, known as the local option law, was duly adopted in the city of Aurora, Lawrence county, Mo., said city of Aurora being then and there a city of more than 2,500 inhabitants; that thereafterwards, to wit, on or about the 13th day of February, 1909, the said act of the Legislature of the state of Missouri, approved April 5, 1887, known as the local option law, was duly adopted in Lawrence county, Mo., outside of the corporate limits of said city of Aurora, Mo., said city of Aurora, Mo., being then and there a city of more than 2,500 inhabitants; that at all the times hereinafter referred to said law was in full force and effect in Lawrence county, Mo.; that thereafterwards, to wit, on or about the 1st day of December, 1909, while said law was in full force and effect in said county, one Victor L. Rawlings in the said county of Lawrence in the state of Missouri, did then and there willfully and unlawfully order or receive, keep, store, and deliver distilled, fermented, and intoxicating liquors, to wit, one-half gallon of whisky, for one Will Williams, the said Victor L. Rawlings not being then and there a licensed dramshop keeper or by law authorized to sell liquors as a wholesaler, and the said whisky not being for the use of the said Victor L. Rawlings or for the use of his family, against the peace and dignity of the state. Archie L. Hilpirt."

A comparison of the foregoing information with the law clearly demonstrates that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
82 cases
  • Sherrill v. Brantley, 30783.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 22 Diciembre 1933
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 21 Abril 1947
    ... ...         (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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 3 Abril 1922
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 9 Julio 1930
    ... ...         (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 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT