State v. Rawlings

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtBrown
Citation232 Mo. 544,134 S.W. 530
PartiesSTATE v. RAWLINGS.
Decision Date14 February 1911
134 S.W. 530
232 Mo. 544
STATE
v.
RAWLINGS.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
February 14, 1911.

1. STATUTES (§ 114)—TITLE—SUFFICIENCY.

Under Const. art. 4, § 28 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 185), providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in the title, the title of Laws 1907, p. 231, entitled "An act to prohibit persons running order houses from delivering intoxicating liquors to persons having no license to deal in the same," etc., is not sufficient to include a provision making it unlawful for any person not a licensed dramshop keeper or a wholesaler to order for, receive, store, keep, or deliver, as agent or otherwise of another, intoxicating liquors; the title specifying particular persons and acts to which the act applies, while the provision relates to different persons and acts.

2. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 304)—JUDICIAL NOTICE —FACTS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

The court will take judicial notice of the fact that the Legislature relies in a large measure on the titles of the several laws enacted by it.

3. STATUTES (§ 114)—TITLE—SUFFICIENCY.

The title of Laws 1907, p. 231, entitled "An act to prohibit the keeping, storing or delivering to another person intoxicating liquors in local option counties," is sufficient within Const. art. 4, § 28 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 185), to support a provision prohibiting any person from keeping, storing, or delivering for or to another, in a local option county, any intoxicating liquors.

4. STATUTES (§ 5)—ENACTMENT—LEGISLATIVE POWER.

Under Const. art. 4, § 55 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 204), authorizing the Legislature in extra

[134 S.W. 531]

session to act on subjects other than those specifically designated in the proclamation calling it, the Legislature in extra session may enact any laws which the Governor may by special message recommend after the Legislature has met, though article 5, § 9 (page 207), requires the Governor in his message to state specifically each matter on which he deems it necessary for the Legislature to act.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 208)—CLASS LEGISLATION.

Rev. St. 1909, § 7227, prohibiting any person from keeping, storing, or delivering for or to another in any local option county any intoxicating liquors, is not class legislation in violation of Const. art. 4, § 53 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 197), because it places all counties which have adopted local option in one class, since any county may become a member of that class.

6. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 205)—INFORMATION—SURPLUSAGE.

Under Rev. St. 1909, § 5115, providing that no information shall be invalid for surplusage, an information alleging that accused while the local option law was in force did unlawfully "order for, receive," keep, store, and deliver intoxicating liquors to a person named, charges a violation of section 7227, prohibiting any person from keeping, storing, or delivering for or to another person in a local option county any intoxicating liquors; the quoted words being surplusage.

7. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 205)—OFFENSES — INDICTMENT — VIOLATION OF LOCAL OPTION LAW.

Where an indictment charges that the local option law was adopted in a certain city, and subsequently was adopted in the county outside of the city, and then charges a violation of Rev. St. 1909, § 7227, in the county, and the evidence shows the offense not to have been committed in the city, it is immaterial whether the city had or had not lawfully adopted the local option law.

8. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 223)—OFFENSES —EVIDENCE.

Where an information charges that an offense in violation of Rev. St. 1909, § 7227, was committed in a local option county, it is sufficient to prove that the offense was committed at any place in the county where the local option law was in force, and proof that the offense was committed in a city of 2,500 inhabitants is no defense if the evidence shows that the city had adopted the law.

9. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 139)—OFFENSES —EVIDENCE.

A possession of liquor lasting only five minutes is not a storing of liquor in violation of Rev. St. 1909, § 7227.

10. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 238)—OFFENSES—EVIDENCE.

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.

134 S.W. 532

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 practice notes
  • State v. Hedrick, No. 23106.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 3, 1922
    ...Hardware Co. v. Fischer, 269 Mo. 271, 190 S. W. 576; Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 284 Mo. 182, 223 S. W. 738; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544, 134 S. W. 530; State ex rel. City of Chillicothe v. Wilder, 200 Mo. 97, 98 S. W. 465; Vice v. City of Kirksville, 280 Mo. 348, 217 S. W. 77 (cases ......
  • Graff v. Priest, No. 40171.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 21, 1947
    ...of the act. 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 S.W.......
  • State ex rel. Transport Mfg. Co. v. Bates, No. 41456.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 14, 1949
    ...221, 64 S.W. 172; State v. Coffee Co., 171 Mo. 634, 71 S.W. 1011; State ex rel. v. Wiethaup, 231 Mo. 449, 133 S.W. 329; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544, 134 S.W. 530; State v. Gordon, 233 Mo. 383, 135 S.W. 929; State v. Hurley, 258 Mo. 275, 167 S.W. 965; State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 305, 167 S.W.......
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...State ex inf. v. Armstrong, 286 S.W. 705; State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 292 Mo. 27; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 541; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544; State v. Great Western Co., 171 Mo. 634; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131; State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26; State v. McEniry, 269 Mo. 228; State ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • State v. Hedrick, No. 23106.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 3, 1922
    ...Hardware Co. v. Fischer, 269 Mo. 271, 190 S. W. 576; Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 284 Mo. 182, 223 S. W. 738; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544, 134 S. W. 530; State ex rel. City of Chillicothe v. Wilder, 200 Mo. 97, 98 S. W. 465; Vice v. City of Kirksville, 280 Mo. 348, 217 S. W. 77 (cases ......
  • Graff v. Priest, No. 40171.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 21, 1947
    ...of the act. 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 S.W.......
  • State ex rel. Transport Mfg. Co. v. Bates, No. 41456.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 14, 1949
    ...221, 64 S.W. 172; State v. Coffee Co., 171 Mo. 634, 71 S.W. 1011; State ex rel. v. Wiethaup, 231 Mo. 449, 133 S.W. 329; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544, 134 S.W. 530; State v. Gordon, 233 Mo. 383, 135 S.W. 929; State v. Hurley, 258 Mo. 275, 167 S.W. 965; State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 305, 167 S.W.......
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...State ex inf. v. Armstrong, 286 S.W. 705; State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 292 Mo. 27; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 541; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544; State v. Great Western Co., 171 Mo. 634; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131; State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26; State v. McEniry, 269 Mo. 228; State ......
  • 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