Wilson v. State

• Decision Date: 02 July 1917
• Docket Number: (No. 81.)
• Citation: 196 S.W. 921
• Parties: WILSON v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

196 S.W. 921

WILSON v. STATE.

(No. 81.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

July 2, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Prairie County; Thos. C. Trimble, Judge.

Henry Wilson was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Appellant was convicted under an indictment in correct form which charged him with unlawfully and feloniously selling and being interested in the sale of intoxicating liquors, on or about the ____ day of March, 1916, contrary to the provisions of Act No. 30 of the Acts of 1915.

Witness Geo. Brightman, on behalf of the state, testified that Wilson told witness where he could get some booze. Witness went to the place designated and sat down, and in a little while appellant and one Kent came back. Witness, the appellant, and Kent sat down on a bench, appellant being between witness and Kent. Witness handed appellant a dollar, and appellant slipped the booze over to witness. Appellant reached over like he was giving the dollar to Mr. Kent, and witness thought he dropped it in Kent's hand and got the whisky from Kent and slipped it around behind the witness. This occurred in about half an hour after witness asked the appellant about the booze. When witness asked where he could get some booze appellant said he might find some. Witness did not tell him where to go. Witness never bought any whisky from Kent before that time. Witness told appellant to go and get him some whisky. Dock McDaniel was with witness on that occasion.

McDaniel was introduced as a witness for the defense and testified that he met the appellant that night; that he was with Geo. Brightman. He asked appellant if he could get witness some whisky. Appellant replied that he did not know; he would try to. Witness and Geo. Brightman gave appellant a half dollar a piece; that Mr. Kent came along; that they were standing right close to where the railroad crossing is. Appellant spoke to Kent. Witness was about ten feet from Kent and appellant. Kent and appellant walked on down the road a piece, and appellant and Kent were standing there talking to some other colored fellows, and after they got through talking they came on back to where witness and Brightman were waiting, and appellant handed Brightman the whisky, and witness and Brightman walked off and drank it.

Appellant himself testified as follows:

"Mr. Brightman met me out in the middle of the street and says, `Henry, do you know where I can get some booze?' I says, `Mr. Brightman, I don't sell no booze.' He says, `I know you don't, Henry; Mr. Kent has some and he won't sell that; I thought you knew where you could get some.' And I says, `I don't know whether I can or not.' Mr. Kent was coming down the street, and I says, `Wait and I will see;' and I spoke to Mr. Kent, and he crossed the railroad track and goes right down towards Beine creek, and he was not gone but a little while and come back to where George Brightman, George Loving and I were sitting on the bench. The bench was just like that, and I sat right there. Mr. Brightman sat right there. George Loving sat right there. The bench extended out like that, and Mr. Kent sat down on the end of the bench. Mr. Kent pushed the whisky behind me like that, and Mr. Brightman reaches behind me and gets the whisky and puts the dollar down here. He intended to put it on my leg, but I knocked it off. Mr. Kent got the dollar from behind me, and I never did touch the whisky."

The court instructed the jury, in substance, that it was material for the state to prove the charge as alleged; that if appellant sold the whisky or was interested in the sale, either directly or indirectly, or if he aided any one to bring about a sale to another, he would be guilty; that if money was given appellant to procure whisky from some one unknown to the party who wanted to buy, or if the party who wanted to buy did not know where he could get the whisky, and appellant went and procured the whisky from some one unknown to the buyer, he became the agent of the seller and was equally as guilty; and if the jury believed that such were the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, they should convict the appellant and assess his punishment at one year in the penitentiary.

Appellant requested the court to tell the jury that as a matter of law before they could convict they must find from the evidence that appellant was interested either directly or indirectly in the sale of intoxicating liquors as charged in the indictment; and further asked the court to tell the jury that the term "directly or indirectly interested" means that defendant must have some interest in the...