State v. Smith, No. 28263.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtWhite
Citation300 S.W. 1081
PartiesSTATE v. SMITH.
Decision Date12 December 1927
Docket NumberNo. 28263.
300 S.W. 1081
STATE
v.
SMITH.
No. 28263.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
December 12, 1927.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; E. P. Dorris, Judge.

Roy Smith was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Sharon J. Pate and Von Mayes, both of Caruthersville, for appellant.

North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and H. O. Harrawood, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WHITE, P. J.


The defendant was charged by information filed in the circuit court of Pemiscot county with feloniously transporting intoxicating liquor, to wit, moonshine, corn whisky, and ethyl alcohol. On a trial, July 1, 1926, at the close of the evidence offered by the state, the defendant asked an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. It was overruled; the defendant elected to stand upon his demurrer and offered no evidence. The case was then submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged in the information, assessing his punishment at 2 years in the State Penitentiary. The court rendered judgment upon the verdict, and the defendant appealed.

I. The principal point relied upon by the defendant for a reversal is that the state failed to make out a case showing that the defendant transported any liquor. The state offered as a witness Scott Carey, then deputy constable of Little Prairie township, in Pemiscot county. April 1, 1925, he was working on his farm which is situated in what is known as the "loop" of two levees. He said that he was acquainted with John Janes, Roy Smith, and Ray Edwards. The facts relating to the transportation are best described in his language:

"Well, the first I saw was Mr. Smith and Mr. Janes come over the levee in a Buick Six roadster and stopped at the bottom of the levee on the inside of my field and got out, looking around the engine and around the car, and immediately, or almost immediately, a Ford coupe drove across the levee and stopped by the side of the Buick on the right or river side, and

300 S.W. 1082

a fellow, Ray Edwards, got out of the Ford. I was about 300 yards up there raking in the garden at that time, and I could see them cross back and forth, and finally I decided I would go and see what was going on, and when about half way between my house and the cars I saw them handling something back and forth, and I drove up to the right of them in my car and got out and asked what they were doing, and they closed theirs cars down and locked the back end. No one answered me, but started looking at each other, and I told Ray Edwards to open his car, that I wanted to look in it, and he said

I couldn't look in it without a search warrant, and we had a few words about the search warrant, and I told them that I would put them under arrest, and then I put them all in the Buick and brought them in."

After the deputy constable got to town he caused search warrants to be issued and armed with those warrants, with the assistance of the sheriff, J. H. Smith, he searched both the Buick and the Ford. In the Buick they found 10 gallons of alcohol, 1½ or 2 gallons of moonshine whisky which had been colored, and in the Ford they found 25 or 30 gallons of alcohol, and perhaps some whisky. There was no objection to the testimony of the sheriff and other witnesses that the whisky which they found in the Buick was corn...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • State v. Howard, No. 29053.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 11, 1929
    ...feature, is constitutional. State v. Knight, 300 S.W. 719; State v. Brown, 304 Mo. 78; State v. Cook, 3 S.W. (2d) 365; State v. Smith, 300 S.W. 1081; State v. Wheeler, 2 S.W. (2d) 779; State v. Brown, 317 Mo. 361; State v. Boyer, 300 S.W. 826; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Mosby, 289 Mo. 472; S......
  • State v. Londe, No. 36748.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1939
    ...we have ruled legitimate argument in reply is not improper. [State v. Reagan (Mo.), 108 S.W. (2d) 391, 397[18, 19]; State v. Smith (Mo.), 300 S.W. 1081, 1083[4]; State v. Lynn (Mo.), 23 S.W. (2d) 139, 141 [1-4].] We take the most specific instance of record. "Mr. Hough asks you to consider ......
  • Winkler v. Railroad Co., No. 26326.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 3, 1928
    ...Co., 282 S.W. 141; Kennett v. Const. Co., 273 Mo. 279; State v. Shepherd, 192 S.W. 427; State v. Watson, 1 S.W. (2d) 837; State v. Smith, 300 S.W. 1081; Wilson v. Seed Co., 243 S.W. 390; Hartman v. Hartman, 284 S.W. 488; State v. Finkelstein, 213 S.W. 465; State v. Emory, 79 Mo. 461; Shield......
  • Winger v. General Am. Life Ins. Co., No. 47837
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 13, 1961
    ...will not support an inference that such fact existed on a prior date as the inference will not run backward. State v. Smith, Mo.Sup., 300 S.W. 1081, 1082(1). Further, there is no evidence in the record that Midwest (to whom the new policies were delivered on November 27, 1957) had authorize......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • State v. Howard, No. 29053.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 11, 1929
    ...feature, is constitutional. State v. Knight, 300 S.W. 719; State v. Brown, 304 Mo. 78; State v. Cook, 3 S.W. (2d) 365; State v. Smith, 300 S.W. 1081; State v. Wheeler, 2 S.W. (2d) 779; State v. Brown, 317 Mo. 361; State v. Boyer, 300 S.W. 826; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Mosby, 289 Mo. 472; S......
  • Winkler v. Railroad Co., No. 26326.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 3, 1928
    ...Co., 282 S.W. 141; Kennett v. Const. Co., 273 Mo. 279; State v. Shepherd, 192 S.W. 427; State v. Watson, 1 S.W. (2d) 837; State v. Smith, 300 S.W. 1081; Wilson v. Seed Co., 243 S.W. 390; Hartman v. Hartman, 284 S.W. 488; State v. Finkelstein, 213 S.W. 465; State v. Emory, 79 Mo. 461; Shield......
  • Winger v. General Am. Life Ins. Co., No. 47837
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 13, 1961
    ...will not support an inference that such fact existed on a prior date as the inference will not run backward. State v. Smith, Mo.Sup., 300 S.W. 1081, 1082(1). Further, there is no evidence in the record that Midwest (to whom the new policies were delivered on November 27, 1957) had authorize......
  • State v. King, No. 31765.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 28, 1932
    ...two cases which call for consideration are State v. Janes, 318 Mo. 525, 1 S.W. (2d) 137, and the companion case of State v. Smith (Mo.), 300 S.W. 1081. There a deputy constable saw a Buick roadster and a Ford coupé stop at a secluded spot some distance away. The occupants got out and moved ......
  • 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