The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1897-04-14
CAN'T KEEP LIQUOR
IN YOUR HOUSE UNLESS IT is OFF,
ClAL OR STAMPED.
Important Dc ciston-- Resul, Of 3 Divided
the United States Court's De clsion.

pOIISNL OS NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. W q DAsANSS
Court--Justice Mclver Cells Attention te
the United States Courts Decision.
By reason Of al eaually divided
court the State supreme court has ren,
dered decision to the effect that q
man cannot keep two and half gal
Ions of whiszey in his house for his
own personal use, without the com
missioner's stamp upon it, without
laying himself liable to criminal pros,
ecution under the dispensary laV.
The decision was rendered in the
case OF Anderson Chastian and the
Judgment of the circuit court below
stands affirmed Chief Justice Mclver
and Associate Justice Gary have fled
very strong opinions against sustain
ing the finding of the lower court.
Mr.. Justice Jones files the opinion on
the other side, in which Associate
Justice Pope concurs. In the Flor
ence case recently decided, in which
the court was equally divided, the ap-
pellants have submitted rec 1est that
rehearing be granted before all the
Judges sitting en- banc. No doubt a
similar request will be made in this
case. Chief Justice McIver, in his opin-
ion, thus presents the matter in sub
stance:
The defendant was found guilty and
sentenced to pay a fine of 500, or go
on 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 Stste.
The appeal was taken on the follow
ing grounds in brief.
First. Because his honor erred IN
charging the jury as follows: The
question is did he have liquor there,
keeping it there without any stamps
on it, If so, he must show that either
he bought it through the regular
channels, the dispensary, or that he
obtained 1t from the State commits
sioner the proper stamps to be put on
it" and should have charged the jury
instead that the keeping Of a small
quantity of liquor in his dwelling
house for his own use and not to be
bartered does not constitute crime.
Second That it is only the storing
or keeping ID possession OF alcoholic
liquors for soma unlawful use or pur'
pose, which is made an iudictable of
Tense by statute aud his honor erred
in not so holding.
The chief justice states that from the
testimony, the State consaables found
in the dwelling house, while defend
ant was absent a three gallon jug
containing about two gallons Of corn
whiskey, which they seized, because
there were no stamps upon it from the
State commissioner. There was nc
testimony to show that the whiskey
was for sale Or any other unlawful
purpose or that the defendant had
ever sold whiskey. On the contrary
the defendant stated that he had OBJ
SiRsa SFgqs4a TIE EaiskeT EafeasJ feaJH hHhEee g weeks sS
for no other purpose, because 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 was admitted
that the whiskey had not been bought
from a dispensary and it hsd no
stamps on it. The charge of the Cir
cult judge was SIS follows: The in.
dictment is for storing and keeping in
possession alcoholic liquors. If man
undertakes to keep liquor he must
have the stamp Of the State commits,
sioner. The question is did he have
liquor there, keeping it without any
stamp, if so he must show that he
bought it from the dispenssry 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 be kept safely
without any trouble and if 8 man is
not minded to put himself to that
trouble, then he.wiu have to look out
for the consequences.
The chief justice goes on to say that
the circuit judge proceeded upon the
theory that 1t is an indictable efense
for q person to have in his possession
slcoholic liquors, even for his own
use, unless the required stamps are
upon it. In the first place the indict.
ment does not charge any such otfense
for it does not charge that liquors
were found without the requisite
stamps. On the contrary the charge
is that the defendant unlawfully stor-
ed certain contra band liquor. In the
second place an examination of the
dispensary law of 1896 fails to disclose
any provision making it an indictable
ofense for person to have liquor in
his possession without the stamps Of
the State on it. There are several PRO
visions in that act making such liquor
liable to seizure and forfeiture, but
none declaring that the mere fact that
person is found in possession OF al.
coholic liquors without stamps shall
constitute criminal otfense.
The sections Of ;he act, which 1t IS
contended sustain this prosecution are
the 1st, the 25sh, 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 makes it a
penal ofenSe to DO any OF the actS
therein forbidden, while the second
part was intended to render the Il
ouors referred to liable to seizure
without warrant and to forfeit them.
In other words the first sentence af-
fects persons only and not property,
while the second affects property and
not persons. It is clear that the per.
son charged must not only have man
ufactured, sold, bartered, exchanged,
received or accepted, stored or kept IN
his possession spirituous liquors, but
must have dore so for some unlawful
purpose for that is not only the proper
grammatical construction of the Ian
guage, but also such construction is
necessary to relieve the officers char
ged with the duty of storing and
keeping Of spiritucus liquors from the
penalties pteScribed. While the evi-