Thompson v. Bearden

• Decision Date: 07 July 1942
• Docket Number: 15440.
• Citation: 21 S.E.2d 189,200 S.C. 519
• Parties: THOMPSON v. BEARDEN, Sheriff.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

21 S.E.2d 189

200 S.C. 519

THOMPSON v. BEARDEN, Sheriff.

No. 15440.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 7, 1942

W A. Bull, of Greenville, for appellant.

Wilton H. Earle, of Greenville, for respondent.

FISHBURNE Justice.

The plaintiff brought this action in claim and delivery against R. Homer Bearden, as Sheriff of Greenville County, to recover the possession of approximately 444 pints, 131 half pints and 12 quarts of tax paid liquor.The liquor was seized by the sheriff's deputies on June 19, 1941, at a place in Greenville County near the North Carolina line, called Chestnut Springs, where was operated the business known as Charlie Thompson's Tourist Cabins, this being the name of the plaintiff.It is alleged that the possession of this whiskey by the Sheriff is unlawful without authority, and in violation of the rights of the plaintiff.

The case was tried in the County Court of Greenville County, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant.The County Court denied motions made by the plaintiff for a directed verdict and for a new trial, and from this judgment the appeal is taken.

The issue to be determined is whether there was any evidence to show that the tax paid whiskey seized by the Sheriff was in "a place of business" as defined by Section 15 of ActNo. 199, 41St. at Large, pages 303-307.The pertinent provisions of this section read as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to store or have in possession in his, her, or its place of business other than a licensed liquor store, any alcoholic liquors whatsoever.A place of business shall be, and include, any place where goods, wares, or merchandise are sold or offered for sale, or distributed, and also places of amusement.A place of business shall also include residences and transportation vehicles when sale of any merchandise is made therefrom.A place of business shall also include outbuildings, warehouses and garages, when adjacent to or used in connection with any place of business where any goods, wares or merchandise are sold, or offered for sale, or distributed therefrom; Provided, further, that all alcoholic liquor found in places of business, as above defined, is hereby declared to be contraband and shall be subject to seizure, confiscation and sale, as is provided in Section 17 of this Act ***."

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff is the owner of about thirty acres of land on the right-hand side of the highway leading from Greenville to Hendersonville, upon which are located adjacent to the highway a cafe and kitchen and two connected dance halls frequented by the public.Just opposite these buildings on the other side of the highway, the plaintiff owns a tract of land upon which are located five cabins.These cabins on the left-hand side of the road are, according to the testimony for the defense, about 75 yards from the dance halls and cafe.The testimony for the plaintiff places them at a greater distance.The liquor in question was seized by the sheriff's deputies in two of the cabins, one of which was occupied by the mother-in-law of the plaintiff, and the other occupied by the plaintiff himself.

There is no testimony that any goods, wares or merchandise were actually sold from these cabins.The real issue before the court is whether it may reasonably be inferred from the evidence that these cabins were used in connection with the cafe and dance halls operated across the road so as to come within that portion of the 1939 Act which provides: "A place of business shall also include outbuildings, warehouses and garages, when adjacent to or used in connection with any place of business where any goods, wares or merchandise are sold, or offered for sale, or distributed therefrom ***."

It is admitted that in the dance halls and cafe, beer, wine, cigarettes, soft drinks and sandwiches were sold.

The officers made the seizure in the afternoon of June 19th, and found in the cabin occupied by the plaintiff's mother-in-law about seventeen cases of liquor of various brands and classes.They discovered that all of the cases except about five had been opened and that five or six bottles of whiskey had been removed from each of the opened cases.They found cases of whiskey stored all over the room: some on the floor at the foot of the bed, much of it on top of the bed, and other cases beneath the bed.

When the sheriff's deputies arrived at the dance hall they saw four men seated within and apparently waiting to be served.One of the officers secreted himself behind a corner of the building and saw the plaintiff's married daughter, who apparently worked in the cafe, walk from the dance hall across the road to the cabin of the plaintiff's mother-in-law where the great bulk of the liquor was found.She immediately returned to the dance hall from this cabin with a pint of whiskey in her hand, "kinder locked up under her arm."The officer asked her what she intended doing with it.She replied, "What do you think I am going to do with it?"In the kitchen connected with the cafe the officers found fruit jars, empty whiskey bottles, a quart bottle with about two drinks in it, and a half pint of whiskey sitting on the table.

The plaintiff testified that he had nothing to do with the conduct and operation of the business operated on the right-hand side of the road,--that is, the cafe and the dance halls.He said that this business was carried on by his wife; he also stated, "I stay there and help my wife."The evidence shows that sometimes he and his wife slept in the kitchen connected with the cafe, and sometimes across the road in a garage which he had converted into a garage apartment.

The plaintiff, who was not at the tourist...