The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1897-04-14
CAN'T KEEP LIQUOR
IN YOUR HOUSE UNLESS IT Is Off.
CIAL OR STAMPED.

CIHl OH RmFCO.
Important Decision -Resulr Of Divided
Court-.Jusiice Mclver Calls Attcatlon to
the United States Coult's Decision.
By reason of al equally divide
court the State supreme court has ZEN
dered decision to the effect that g
man cannot keep two and half gel
Ions of whiskey in his house for h-5
own personal use, without the com
missioner's stamp upon it, without
laying himself liable to crimips! pre- :.
ecution under the disr snsary lay.
The decision was rendered N the
. case OF Anderson Cbastian and the
Judgment of the circuit court below
stands affirmed. Chief Justice McIv1''
and Associate Justice Gary have fl
very strong opinions against sus."'.
ing the finding of the lower corr;
Mr.. Justice Jones files the opinion l
the other side, in which Assoc'G ,
Justice Pore concuis. In t,e Flo"
ence case recently decided, IN whirl
the court was equally divided, the az
pellants have submitted d request tha.
q reheariug be granted before all the
judges sitting en- banc. No doubt q
similar request will :, made in th )
,sse. Chief Justice McIver, in his opin-
IN, thus presents the matter in sui =.
ance:
The defendant was found guilty and
ntenced to pay a fine OF $1C0, or go
"a the chain gang for three months
for having in his possession two and q
half gallons of corn whiskey,. which
had no State stamp on it. On this
Judgment an appeal was taken to the
supreme court of the ST..
The appeal was taken on the follow.
ing grounds in brief.
First. Because his honor erred in
charging the jury as follows: 1.-The
question is did he have liquor there,
keeping it there without any stamps
on it2 If so, he must show that either
he bought it through the regular
channels, the dispensary. or that he
obtained it from the State commits
sioner the proper stamps to be put on
it" and should have charged the jurv
Instead that the keeping of a sne
quantity of liquor in his dwelling
house for his own use and not ID !,
bartered does not constitute a crime.
Second. That it is only the storing
or keeping In posses 3ion OF alcoholic
liquors for some unlawful r:s or pur'
pose, which is made sn iudictable Of
tense by statute aud his honor erred
in not SO holding.
The chief justice state that from the
testimony, the State conslables our d
in the dwelling hoU-s, while defenf
ant wes absent q three gaIlon jus
containing about two gallons of corn
whiskey, which they seized, because
there were no stamps upon 1t from the
State commissioner. There was no
testimony 10 show that the whiskey
was for sale or any other unlawiui
purpcse or that the defendant had
ever sold whiskey. On the contrary
the defendant stated that he had Ok
tanned the whiskey about three weeks
previous for his own personal use and
for no other purpose, bsc1use he was
in bad health and needed it; that he
had never sold any whiskey and could
not tell how much of it he had used
before it was seized. It wss admitted !
that the whiskey had not besn bought
from a dispensary and it had no
stamps on it. The charge of the cir
cult judge was es follows: 'lne in
dictment is for storing and keeping in
possession alcoholic liquors. If man
undertakes 10 keep liquor he must
have the stamp OF the State commits
sioner. The question is did he have
liquor there, keeping it without any
stsmp, if so he must show that he
bought it from the dispensary or that
he obtained from the State commits
sioner the stamps to put on it. The
law prevents this storing of liquors
shows how it may he kept safely
without any trouble and if man IS
not minded to put himself to that
trouble, then he..will have to look out
for the consequences.
The chief justice goes on to say that
the circuit judge proce eded upon the
theory that 1t is an indict1ble effeDes
for a person to have in his pos- :ssion
alcoholic liquors, even for his own
uss, unless the required stamps are
upon it. In the first place the indict
ment does not charge any such oHense
for it does not charge that liquors
were found without the requisite
stamps. On the cont :ary the charge
is that the defendant unlawfu'ly stor-
ed certain cont raband liquor. In the
second place an examination Of the
dispensary law of 1896 feils to disclcs,
any provision making it an indictable
otfense for person to have liquor in
his pcc-ession without the STAMP OF
the State on it. There are several pro-
visions in that act king such liquor
liable to seizure and forfeiture, but
none declaring that the mere fact that
q person is found in pcsc:-sion of al.
coholic liquors without STAMPS shall
constitute q criminal offense.
The sectors of the act, which it is
contended sustain this prosecution are
the LIST, the 25th, the 26th and 35th,
and these sections are considered in
the opinion of the chief justice.
After quoting the first section he
says that it is divided into two DIS
tinct parts; the first part me kes it a
penal offepss to do any of the acts
therein forbidden, while the second
part was intended to render the il
auors referred to liable to seizure
without a warrant and to forfeit them.
In other words the first sent encs af-
fects per- DPS only and not property.
-.l:lo tho eanond oHacfs rarprfu AM,