State v. Thornson
Decision Date | 25 February 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 25864.,25864. |
Citation | 170 Minn. 349,212 N.W. 591 |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. THORNSON et al. |
Appeal from District Court, Rice County; Fred W. Senn, Judge.
Proceeding by the State against Sam Thornson for the condemnation of one Buick sedan automobile for unlawful use in the transportation of intoxicating liquor. From a judgment of forfeiture, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
H. H. Dunn, of Albert Lea, for appellant.
Clifford L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., and Lucius A. Smith, of Faribault, for the State.
Proceeding under G. S. 1923, § 3230, for the condemnation of one Buick sedan automobile upon the ground that it was unlawfully used in the transportation of intoxicating liquor. There was judgment of forfeiture and the defendant Thornson appeals.
1. On September 6, 1925, the defendant Thornson was convicted in the district court of Rice county of the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor on his plea of guilty and was fined $150. He had purchased two half pint bottles of alcohol and some near beer at Albert Lea and proceeded north. At Northfield, in Rice county, he was arrested and his automobile seized. He was on his way with another man to the Twin Cities to attend the state fair. He carried the liquor in his pockets. He did not intend to sell it. It was intended for the use of himself and his companion.
It is not essential to the offense of unlawful transportation that there be a purpose to sell. State v. Brothers, 144 Minn. 337, 175 N. W. 685; Miller v. Commonwealth, 135 Va. 597, 115 S. E. 512; Goble v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 656, 267 S. W. 722. It is not a defense that it was intended for personal use. Steinwach v. Commonwealth, 197 Ky. 262, 246 S. W. 795; Coolbaugh v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 312, 247 S. W. 284; Bramlett v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 268 S. W. 739; Green v. Commonwealth, 195 Ky. 698, 243 S. W. 917. Speaking of the Eighteenth Amendment, § 1, 40 Stat. 1050, 1941, G. S. 1923, vii, referring to the transportation of intoxicating liquors, the court said in Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 100, 43 S. Ct. 504, 67 L. Ed. 894, 27 A. L. R. 1306:
There was clearly transportation in violation of the statute. State v. Dattalo (Minn.) 209 N. W. 903; State v. Fries (Minn.) 211 N. W. 310; Asher v. State, 194 Ind. 553, 142 N. E. 407, 143 N. E. 513; Berry v. State, 196 Ind. 258, 148 N. E. 143; Waterhouse v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 255, 265 S. W. 558; Morgan v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 520, 270 S. W. 853; People v. Ninehouse, 227 Mich. 480, 198 N. W. 973; Commonwealth v. Dzewiacin, 252 Mass. 126, 147 N. E. 582.
The statute provides that, if the property is "used for or in or in connection with the transportation of intoxicating liquor in violation of the Constitution or law of this state or of the United States," it shall be condemned and sold upon execution. G. S. 1923, § 3230. See State v. One 1921 Cadillac Touring Car, 157 Minn. 138, 195 N. W. 778. The defendant contends that the statute does not apply when the intoxicating liquor is carried for personal use, and that in such case the auto is not used in the unlawful transportation of liquor, the transportation being but an incident to the use. That the transportation is unlawful, though the liquor is intended for personal use, is clear. In Walker v. State, 113 Neb. 19, 201 N. W. 640, a seizure and condemnation of an auto was sustained. All that the opinion discloses is that the defendant parked his car in a public street near a clubhouse, and that as he alighted an officer searched him and took from his person a pint of intoxicating liquor. The defendant cites Tutton v. State, 28 Ga. App. 152, 110 S. E. 455. In many respects the case is similar in its facts. The defendant was carrying a quart bottle of whisky in his pocket and was traveling in his automobile. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the car was used by the owner in conveying liquor in contravention of the statute. It said it was a question of fact. In the case before us there is a finding of transportation as a fact. In Crapp v. State, 23 Ga. App. 257, 98 S. E. 174, the defendant was traveling in his auto and had a quart bottle of whisky in his grip. He had it for his own use and not for the purpose of delivering it to any person. His automobile was condemned. In sustaining the judgment of condemnation the court said:
Our statute should have the same construction. The defendant, as he confessed by his plea, was unlawfully transporting...
To continue reading
Request your trial