State v. Twiggs
| Decision Date | 22 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10297.) |
| Citation | 101 S.E. 663 |
| Parties | STATE. v. TWIGGS. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Allendale County; Hayne F. Rice, Judge.
Arthur Twiggs was convicted of having in his possession and transporting contraband liquor, and appeals. Affirmed.
R. P. Searson, Jr., of Allendale, for appellant.
Solicitor R. L. Gunter, of Aiken, for the State.
HYDRICK, J. Appellant was convicted of having in his possession and transporting contraband liquor. When arrested, he had in his possession a suit case, which had 18 pints of whisky in it.
He testified that neither the suit case nor the liquor belonged to him, and that he did not know the suit case had liquor in it, until it was opened by the officer who arrested him. He sought to explain his possession of it by saying that he had merely taken it off the train at Baldoc, at the request of Alex Badger, a fellow passenger; that Badger got off, when the train stopped at a water tank, where he had a store, several hundred yards from the station, and asked him to take the suit ease off at the station; that, when he got off with it, he saw some men standing around, and, instead of setting it down at the station for Badger to come and get it, he carried it some distance from the station and put it in his (defendant's) buggy, and was expecting Badger to come and get it.
Badger testified that the suit case and liquor did not belong to him, but that it had been put on the train at Allendale by one Sam Cato, who asked him to set it off at Baldoc, though Cato himself did not get on the train; that he suspected that it contained liquor, and asked defendant to get it off at the station, but without telling defendant of his suspicion. Nevertheless, Badger, who was indicted along with defendant, pleaded guilty.
The state's testimony tended to prove that, when defendant was arrested, he was several hundred yards from the station, and was driving towards his own home, which was in the opposite direction from Badger's store.
We think the testimony warranted the inference that defendant knew the suit case contained liquor. There was therefore no error in the rulings of the court as to the sufficiency of the evidence to convict.
Nor was there error in instructing the jury that, where a person is found in possession of more whisky than the law allows him to have, the burden is upon him to show that he procured it lawfully.
The statute says:
"It shall be unlawful for any person * * * to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Avery
...actual knowledge that it contained liquor, if from the circumstances a man of ordinary intelligence would have known this. State v. Twiggs, 123 S. C. 47, 101 S. E. 663.’ McFadden on Prohibition (1925), in section 286, says: ‘ Knowledge. In order to uphold a charge of unlawful transportation......
-
State v. Solomon
...relieve him from criminal responsibility, the burden is on him to establish such defense. 33 C.J. 746, Section 483; State v. Twiggs, 123 S.C. 47, 101 S.E. 663, 31 A.L.R 1; State v. Williams, 35 S.C. 344, 14 S.E. 819; State v. Geuing, 1 McCord, 574. But the failure of a defendant to assume t......
-
State v. Burns Et Ux
...not the only inference of which the evidence is reasonably susceptible. See State v. Tooley, 107 S. C. 408, 93 S. E. 132; State v. Twiggs, 123 S. C. 47, 101 S. E. 663; State v. Fant, 88 S. C. 493, 70 S. E. 1027; State v. Drakeford, 120 S. C. 400, 113 S. E. 307. In that view, the contention ......
-
State v. Atkinson
...in the case. The cases cited by the appellant are therefore not in point. See section 860 of the Criminal Code of 1922; State v. Twiggs, 123 S. C. 47, 101 S. E. 663. The appellant's second exception is as follows: "That his honor erred in charging the jury as follows: 'Any amount is contrab......