State v. Widick
| Decision Date | 14 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | 27426 |
| Citation | 292 S.W. 52 |
| Parties | STATE v. WIDICK |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert Stemmons, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.
North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and H. O. Harrawood, Sp. Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
This was a prosecution under section 2, p. 237, Laws of 1923 wherein appellant was convicted of the felony of using a still, worm, etc., in the process of making intoxicating liquor for sale. Trial was had in Newton county, after a change of venue from Lawrence county. The jury imposed as punishment the term of imprisonment for two years in the penitentiary, which is the sole punishment fixed by said section. An appeal was taken from the judgment rendered upon the verdict.
The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged. We think a case was made for the jury. The defendant offered no evidence. That of the state tended to show the following facts: On January 7, 1925, the sheriff of Lawrence county and other officers, including the prosecuting attorney, searched the premises of appellant under the authority of a search warrant. In his dwelling house two sacks of corn chops, a sack and a part of sack of sugar, two empty barrels, which had apparently contained mash quite recently, and a still and worm, were found. In the still a remnant of liquid was found, which the sheriff testified was corn whisky. About a half of a quarter of a mile from appellant's house, but within the inclosure of his premises, two full barrels of corn mash were found in a sort of cellar or cave, covered with rocks and planks and connected with the house by a footpath. The mash was in a state of fermentation when found.
Sheriff Austin testified that appellant asked him who turned him in, and then admitted that he had a still in the house. Two or three witnesses testified to remarks of appellant, complaining that he had been given no warning in advance of the raid, which he seemed to think was customary on the part of officers willing to be reasonably thoughtful of lawbreakers. When discovered, the still showed signs of soot and smoke as the result of contact with fire and still contained some corn whisky.
From the foregoing facts a case was made for the consideration of the jury. Appellant admitted that the still was his. That it had been used in the process of distilling intoxicating liquors was a fair inference from the presence of corn whisky in the still and the evidence it bore of proximity to fire. From appellant's admitted ownership of the still and its presence in his home, the use of the still by him in making such liquor was reasonably to be inferred. That such manufacturing was for the purpose of sale could be reasonably inferred from the large quantity of mash in process of fermentation...
To continue reading
Request your trial