Town of Newberry v. Dorrah

• Decision Date: 03 July 1916
• Docket Number: 9429.
• Citation: 89 S.E. 402,105 S.C. 28
• Parties: TOWN OF NEWBERRY v. DORRAH.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

89 S.E. 402

105 S.C. 28

TOWN OF NEWBERRY v. DORRAH.

No. 9429.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 3, 1916

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Newberry County; John S Wilson, Judge.

Harvey Dorrah was convicted before the recorder of violating a liquor ordinance, and appealed to the circuit court.From a judgment affirming judgment of the recorder, defendant appeals.Reversed.

B. V Chapman, of Newberry, for appellant.

R. A Cooper, of Laurens, and J. B. Hunter, City Atty., of Newberry, for respondent.

WATTS J.

The defendant was charged with violation of an ordinance of the town of Newberry in illegally storing spirituous or malt liquors other than in his home or private room.He was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced by the recorder.The case was appealed to the circuit court, and the judgment of the lower court was affirmed by his honor, Judge Wilson.Thereupon defendant appealed, and by five exceptions seeks reversal.The exceptions raise the point that there was no evidence to sustain the conviction of the offense charged.

The evidence showed that the defendant ordered the whisky and went in person and received it from the express office; that he placed it in the wagon of his employer and drove to the house of his employer, placed it in the cookroom temporarily until he could get off at dinner and carry it to his house in another part of the town.He opened the case took out a bottle, opened the bottle, and took a drink out of the bottle.There is not the slightest suggestion in the evidence that it was intended to be stored there longer than dinner time when the defendant intended to go to his own house and carry his liquor with him.There is no suggestion that the defendant was a violator of the law, or that the liquor was intended in any manner for unlawful purposes, but the sole contention is that the law was violated when he placed it at the place other than his house or private room.Under the evidence in the case there was no violation of law.It was no more than if he had placed it in a wagon, buggy, or automobile and stopped to finish his work at his employer's house until dinner hour, when he would quit for dinner and carry it home.It was no more storing in the eyes of the law than if one goes to the express office, gets his liquor, lives some distance from town, stops at a store to purchase goods, leaves his package there with intent to return and get it and carry...