Tittle v. State

• Decision Date: 16 June 1949
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 784.
• Citation: 41 So.2d 295,252 Ala. 377
• Parties: TITTLE et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

41 So.2d 295

252 Ala. 377

TITTLE et al. v. STATE.

6 Div. 784.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 16, 1949

T K. Selman and R. L. Newton, of Jasper, for appellants.

A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Francis M. Kohn, Asst. Atty Gen., for appellee.

SIMPSON Justice.

Proceeding in equity to condemn as contraband an automobile used in transporting a quantity of bear in Walker, a so-called dry county.

Robert Title, who was using the vehicle at the time, and his wife, Evelyn, who owned it, were both made defendants to the bill. From an adverse decree condemning the car, this appeal has proceeded.

The beer bore the stamps of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and had been lawfully purchased in Jefferson County and unless it was being transported in Walker County for the purpose of resale, the car would not be subject to condemnation had Tittle himself owned it. General Acts 1947, p. 39, Code 1940, Cum.Supp., Title 29, § 247.

And unless Mrs. Tittle, who was showed by the undisputed proof to have purchased the automobile with her own funds and was the owner thereof, had knowledge or notice of the illegal use of the vehicle or could have, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, obtained such notice, her property should not be confiscated. The law does not contemplate the condemnation of property of those who do not aid or assist in the unlawful transportation of liquors or beverages or who are not chargeable with notice or knowledge that their property is to be used for such unlawful purpose. Commercial Nat. Bank of Anniston v. State ex rel. Dormon, Ala. Sup., 37 So.2d 644; State ex rel. Dorman v. Slayton, 250 Ala. 535, 35 So.2d 329; Anderson v. State ex rel. Dormon, 246 Ala. 468, 20 So.2d 864; Briscoe Motor Co. v. State, 204 Ala. 231, 85 So. 475.

Seemingly, to the end that the law against such illegal use of vehicles, etc., be effectively enforced, the statute embraced the provision 'that the owner or operator of said vehicle has a reputation of being a seller of prohibited liquors shall be prima facie evidence that such liquors or beverages were being transported for resale.' Act, supra.

So in the instant case it becomes necessary to consider the meaning of this proviso and its application in connection with the undisputed evidence.

Prima facie evidence is 'evidence which suffices for the proof of a particular fact until contradicted or overcome by other evidence. * * * An inference or presumption of law, affirmative or negative of a fact, in the absence of proof, or until proof can be obtained or produced to overcome the inference.' Black's Law Dictionary, 3d Ed., p. 700.

Ballentine's Law Dictionary defines the terms as 'such evidence as, in judgment of law, is sufficient to establish the fact; and, if not rebutted, remains sufficient for the purpose. In a legal sense, such prima facie evidence, in the absence of all controlling evidence, or discrediting circumstances, becomes conclusive of the fact.' P. 1009.

Thus if there was credible evidence that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant had a reputation of being a seller of prohibited liquors, the statute writes into the case an inference on which a finding may be affirmed that the liquors or beverages were being transported for resale and warrants confiscation of the vehicle, if he were the owner and no...