The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-10-07
THE JUG STANDARD.
Interesting Case From
Cumberland County.
When the Law Makes Two Gallons
Presumption Of Sale, How About
a Denial? Union County De-
Cisions Involved.

The case of State VS.. Mcintyre,
from Cumberland. which Will be ar
gued in the Supreme Court on next
Tuesday will present question which
will require the greatest delicacy of
handling in view of the decision of
the court in the Union County case"
where it was held that the law making
the possession of one quart of liquor
prima facie evidence of illegal sale
was constitutional
The Cumberland statute under
which Mcintyre was indicted is en-
tirely similar to that of Union Coun
~, except that the quantity of liquor
necessary to raise the presumption is
two gallons. instead of one quart.
There is this difference between the
cases which greatly complicates the
question however. that in the Union
County case the defendant introduced
no evidence, leaving the correctness
of his sentence to the court for judi
cial construction of the act: while in
the Cumberland County case. the de-
fcndant went on the stand and testi-
fed that the liquor in question was
purchased by him as agent for several
parties who "chipped" in before the
liquor was purchased outside Of the
state, where the sale was legal.
In spite of such testimony in re-
bUttal of the presumption raised by
the statute. the jury found the de-
feudant guilty of retailing and he ap-
pealed. on the ground that. in case of
testimony in rebuttal of a legal pre-
sumption, the burden of proof was
again shifted to the State.
Therefore. the interesting question
for the court to decide is whether
mere disbelief on the part of the jury
a taS of VIII
may be found in possession of more
liquor than the law allows is suffi-
cent to send him to Jail. although
there is no proof whatsoever that he
had ever sold any of the ardent to any
person.
In the light Of the Union County
decision il would appear that the
court, in dealing with this case, must
either reverse that ruling or convict
Il man who denies his crime upon
merely presumptive evidence. In the
Union County case the law provided
that the possession should be evil
dence of sale. The court upheld the
statute. 1t would appear, under that
decision. that the standard created by
statute was evidence. When the
possession was proved by the State
and the defendant testified in rebuttal
there would seem, under the statute
and the decision to be nothing left
except the decision of the jury. That
"A jury sometimes discards the evil
denCe of an individual in favor of a
purely arbitrary declaration of pre-
sumption by statute is evidenced by
the case in point. Judge Fred Moore,
who presided at the trial took the
statute at its face and over-ruled a
request of defendant that he charge
that under tho evidence the defend
ant was not guilty. Therefore. a
delicate matter is cup to- the So
preme Court. Lawyers, as well as
those who live on the banks of the
Cape Fear will watch the result with
interest.
The case of the defendant is the
more desperate by reason of the alb
sence of Justice Brown, who in the
Union County case wrote an extreme
~ forceful dissenting opinion.
If quart or jug is evidence suffi-
cient to convict. Notwithstanding the
word of the purchaser that he bought
for home consumption there will be
shaking and qual1ing and chattering
of teeth all along the line.
What are the equities of jug,
is matter of wigs and gowns.