The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-04-12
Supreme Court UphOIds
Tight Liquor Law.
THE OPINIONS FILED.
In State VS.. Barrett Judge Conner
Holds That Statute Making Pos
session Of More Than Quart
Evidence of Intent to Sell
is Constitutional.

! by the Supreme Court yesterday, only
one, that Of State VS.. Barrett from
Union, was of any general interest.
! The point involved was the con
struction of a statute passed by the
Legislature of 1903, for Union county,
! which declared that the possession of
more than one quart of whiskey at one
time should be prima facie evidences
of an intent to sell.
The defendant Barrett was arrested
| on the road, having at the time some
! five or six gallons of whiskey in his
| buggy which were concealed by lap
robe. The evidence was simply as to
| this fact on the part of the State, the
i defendant offered no testimony and,
following the charge of the judge, the
| Jury returned a verdict Of guilty.
| on appeal the Supreme Court af-
! firmed the verdict and judgment of
| the court below and upheld the con-
| stitutionality of the statute in ques-
| lion. the opinion being written by JUS
| tice Connor and cOncurred in by jus
/ tice Walker in a short opinion.
Justice Brown, dissenting, argued
that the statute was unconstitutional
as it affected fundamental rights guar
anteed by the 14th amendment to the
Constitution of the United States and
as abridging the right of all citizens to
a presumption Of innocence.
The testimony of the State was that
of one j. A. Williams and one Bivins,
who stated that they went up the
road to see if they could not head the
defendant off," that about q mile or
two from town they met him. He had
two five gallon jugs of corn Whiskey,
a one half gallon jug and one pint in
a bottle. He was riding in top bug,
gy and the whiskey was under lap
robe On being accosted the defend
ant said that he got the whiskey in
the country from colored man whom
he did not know; that the Whiskey did
not belong to him but TO other people
whose names he would give at the
proper time, when he would prove 1t
up" .a
Upon this evidence and the admis-
sion of the defendant that he did not
have license to sell whiskey the de,
fendant introduced ne testimony and
requested the court toJ charge the jury
that on the whole evidence they could
not find the defendant guilty.
This the court refused to do. but
based his charge upon the act, chap
ter 434 Of the laws of 1908, which pro-
vided that any one who should keep
in possession liquor to the quantity
of more than one quart within SAID
country, lit shall be prima facie evil
Gence of his keeping it for sale with-
in the meaning of this act
The consttutionality of the act was
attacked on the ground that it was an
invasion by the legislative of the judi
cial department of government and.
End, that it deprived the defendant OF
the presumption of innocence and put
upon him the burden Of showing that
he was not guilty
Tnlun Common n his OniniOn held
that there was no doubt that the legis-
lative department had the power 10
change the rules of evidence, and that
laws which prescribe the eYidcntial
force of certain facts by enacting that
upon proof of such facts a given pre-
sumption shall arise or which deter
mine what facts shall constitute
prima facie case against the accused,
casting the burden Of proof upon him
of dSproving or rebutting the pre-
sumption are not generally regarded
rs unconstitutional even though they
| may destroy the presumption of in
nocence. That an accused person mas
no constitutional right in that or any
other presumption of law or evidence
or proc edurc that the law making
power cannot, within constitutional
limits, deprive him of; and that the
making of certain facts when proven
prima facie evidence of guilt does not
change the burden of proof.
1t was also strongly contended by
the appellant that the facts fixing the
quantity as prima facie evidence had
no relation to the criminal act OF sale
and could not tend to prove it because
: first, possession does not tend to show
an intent to sell and, second, more
than quart of liquor the specified
| quantity, might be needed for domestic
or family use.
Judge Connor however, could see no
merit in these contentious as opposed
to the right of the legislature to con-
| troll the situation by the passage of
the statute
The case was argued by Messrs.
Redwine and Stack for the appellants,
and the attorney general for the sta e.,
Other Opinions.
Other opinions filed were:
Everett " Southern Railway, from
Pamlico, affirmed; Massey V. Barbee
| from Durham, no error; Clark " Trac>
J ton Co, from Durham, affirmed;
| Stewart " Carpet Co, from Guilford,
re wtrial; Crutchfield V. Hunter. from
| Guilford, action dismissed; Griffin v.
Railroad, from Arson, per curiam, pc
| tition to rehear dismissed; Trip ~.
| Mobiles. from Pitt per curlam petit
ton to rehear dismissed; Matthews v.
| telegraph Co., from Guilford, appeal
dismissed by consent of defendant;
! State v. Spiyey, from Guilford, per
| curtain no error; Manufacturing Co.
| v Greensboro, per curlam, affirmed;
Thompson " Telegraph Co. from
Guilford, appeal dismissed by consent,
| Worth V. Ragan, from Guilford, per
curtain, affirmed.
Eleventh District Appeals.
Appeals from the Eleventh District
will be called next Tuesday, April 18th
as follows:
| Wall v. Smith. Whitaker v Whita-
| ker. Doss v. Hutson, Bullen " Han
| cock. carp v. Minton, Ginnings V. Ho-
| tel Co. Jones V. Warehouse Co., Hail
v. stanton. Schafer V. Hotel Co, In re
Ferry, Bank V. Levy, Kerner v. Express
! Co. T,afoon v. Kerner, Parker V. Fen
wick. Corporation Commission ". Rail-