Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-12-02
RICE v. SrATE.
Supreme Court Of Georgia.
October 26. 1893


THE LAW FORBIDDrNG THE CAR
RYING LIQUOR TO a CHURCH IS
VIOLATED BY A PARTY WHO AT
TENDS A CHURCH AND LEAVES
A BOTTLE OF WH1sKEY IN HIS
+ BUGGY NEAR THE CHURCH.
Ben Bice was convicted Of carrying
Intoxicating liquor to q church and ap-
pealed.
The facts appear from the opinion Of
the Court
The Court says:
1t was shown that Bice went to Hope
we'll Church, in Monroe county, carry
ing his wife in n buggy; that on arriv-
ing there he detached his mule, and
left the buggy one or two hundred
yards further out from the church
than. where other buggles were left;
that he had some whiskey in bottle.
which he left in his buggy when he
and his wife went into the church
building. where q religious meeting was
In progress. This was on q Sunday In
August, 1893. Defendant admitted that
he had a small quantity of whlskey,
which he left in his buggy. His defense
was that his wife was sick. and for
two years had been troubled with
heart disease, and that n physician fur
VI
1t was necessary to take it along for
her. The motion for new trial Is based
on the grounds that the verdict Is con-
trary to law and against the evidence
and because the court, In effect charg-
ed the jury that ii was unlawful for
the defendant to carry liquor to a
church. even under the direction of
physician who had prescribed whiskey
as n medicine for his wife, who ac-
tod hit
carry liquor to church, even as a med
icine, except n physician. In cases of
accident or misfortune, liquor may be
carried to church and used, but not
otherwise, except by a physician, etc.
Two points are raised in the brief of
counsel for plaintiff in error: First,
that the place at which the liquor was
carried and left was several hundred
yards from a church or place where
people assembled for Divine worship,
and that this did not constitute a vio-
lation OF the law; second, that taking
spirituous liquor to church for the
use Of a sick person who might need
1t was not within the contemplation of
the statute. Neither of these conten-
tions is. in our Judgment, sound. Sec
ton 43S of the Penal Code positively
forbids any person from carrying to q
church, or other place where the peo-
pie have assembled for Divine worship,
any liquor or intoxicating drink. To
this mandatory provision of the law
certain exceptions are contained in
section AL Id. The exceptions named
are that it shall not be unlawful to use
Intoxicating liquors at such places in
case of accident or misfortune; nor are
practicing physicians prohibited from
carrying and using such liquor as they
might deem necessary in their regular
practice. 1t is commended that these sec
tions of the Code should be strictly
construed. We think so, too, but not
so strictly as to defeat the evident
purpose which was intended to be ac-
complished. The object OF the provision
the indulgence in intoxicating lquore
at a church where people were assem-
bled for worship. The entire object of
the provision would be defeated IL 1t
was so construed as to permit persons
to take such liquors to point within
one or two hundred yards of the church
building, within ready reach of the
thirsty. 1t was hardly contemplated
that the statute would only be violated
by taking the liquor into a church. Ger
tainly its purpose was TO preserve or
der, and promote that decorous con-
duct on the part OF those who attend
the services as BELTS the occasion, and
to absolutely prohibit the introduction
into the assembly Of an influence
which might defeat these objects. TAX
ing into consideration the purposes OF
the act on which the section of the
Code, is founded. fair and even strict
construction requires us to hold that,
when it forbids carrying Intoxicating
liquor to n church, 1t means also to