The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1897-04-15
AN IMPORTANT DECISION ABOUT LIQUOR.
WHISIxEY MUST BE STAMPED.

All Liquors arc Liable to Seizure
Unless State Certificates Are on th'
Bottle or jug.
BY reason of an equally divided
court the STATIC supreme court has
rendered u decision to the effect tina
q man cannot keep two aud q half gal
Ions OF whiskey in his house for his
own personal use, without tho com
missioner's stamp upon it, withou,
laying himself liable to criminal pro
secution under tn, ndispensary law.
Tho decision was rendered in the
case of Anderson Chastain and the
judgment Of the circuit court below
stands affirmed. Chief Justice McIver
and Associate Justice Gary have filed
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 Florence case
was equally divided, the appellants
have submitted a request that a
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 opinion,
thus presents the matter in substance
The defendant was found guilty and
sentenced to pay q fine Of 800, or go
on the chain gang for three months
for having in his possession two and O.
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 State.
Tho 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
omit? If so, he must show that either
he bought it through the regular
channels, the dispensary, or that he
obtained from the State commits
sioner the proper stamps to be put on
1t" and should have charged the jury
instead that the keeping Of d small
quantity of liquor in his dwelling
house for his own use and not to be
barterea does not constitute crime.
Second. That it is only the storing
or keeping in possession Of alcoholic
liquors for some unlawful use or pur
pose, which is made an indictable Of
tense by statute and his honor erred in
not so holding.
Tho chief justice states that from
the testimony. the State constables
found in the dwelling house, while de-
fendant was absent u 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 no
testimony to show chat tho whiskey
was for sale or ary other unlawful pu"-
pose or that the defendant had ever
sold whiskey. On tho contrary the de-
fendant stated that he had obtained
the whiskey about three weeks pre-
vlous for his own personal use and 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. 1t was admitted that
Il dispcnsary and it had no stamps on
1t. The charge Of the circuit judge
was as follows 1.-THE indictment is
for storing and keeping in possession
alcoholic liquors. If a man under
takes to keep liquor he must have the
stamp Of the State commissioners. The
question is did he have liquor there,
keeping it without any stamp, if SO
he must show that he bought it from
the dispcnsary or that he obtained
from the State commissioner the
stamps to put on it. The law prevents
thi storing Of liquors, shows how it
may be kept safely without any trouble
and if a man is not minded to put him.
self to that trouble, then he will have
to look out for the consequences.
The chief justice goes on to say that
the circuit Judge proceeded upon the
theory that it Is au indictablc Oifonsc
for a person to have in his possession
alcoholic liquors, even for his own
upon it. In the fist place the indict-
R1nnt does not rh0rpp a1oh OffnnSn
for it does not charge that liquors
were found without the requisite
stamps. On the contrary the charge
Is that the defendant unlawfully stored
certain contraband liquor. In the
second place an examination of the
dispensary law of 1896 fails to disclose
any provision making it an indictable
otfense for a person to have liquor in
his possession without tho stamps of
the State on it. There are several
provisions 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
alcoholic liquors without stamps shall
constitute criminal oifense.
The sections of the act, which it Is
commended sustain this prosecution, are
the lat, the 25th, the Goth and 35th,
and these sections are considered in
tho opinion OF inc chief justice.
After quoting the first section he
says that,it is divided into two distinct
parts; the first part makes it penal
otfense to do any of the acts therein
forbidden, while the second part was
intended to rendor the liquors referred
to liable to seizure without O warrant
and to forfeit them. In other words
the first sentence affects persons only
and not property, while the second
affects property and not persons. 1t is
clear that tho person charged must
not only have manufactured, sold
Dartered, exchanged, received or &C.
cepted, stored or kept in his posses
sion spirituous liquors, but must have
done so for some unlawful purpose. fol
that is not only the proper grammatica
construction OF tho language, hut also
such q construction Is necessary to re
liaIIa tha aHina,.a oh q rood with thl