Pocahontas star herald., 1908-06-26
BAN ON COLD STORAGE
Decision in Supreme Court
Against Keeping OF IntOxi-
cantS in "COld Storage"


According to a decision handed
down last Monday the Supreme court.
of Arkansas has forever put a ban on
the practice of keeping intoxicating
liquors, beer, etc, in place of "cold
storage" operated for the benefit of
the public. The case in question was
one appealed from Randolph circuit
court, in which Bunk Blackand Frank
Adair were defendants and the state
of Arkansas plaintiff. The defendants
we're tried in ESQ Lemmons' court in
Roanoke township last January on a
charge or operating a blind tiger and
the jury found them guilty, assessing
the fine at $500 each. Defendants
then appealed the case to circuit
court and were acquitted by jury.
on inStru ttiOn of the court that
keeping or giving away liquors was
not crime. Prosecuting Attorney
T. w. Campbell, on behalf of the
state, appealed the case to the
Supreme court and the decision of the
lower court was reversed, on error of
instructions given by Judge Meeks.
An original copy of the opinion
handed down by Chief Justice Hill
was sent to Mr.. Campbell by Attorney
General Kirby, and is as follows;
HILL, &. j. latter stating the
facts) This is an appeal by the
State pursuant 70 Secs. 2613, 26l4
Klr5y's Digest As the crime of
which the defendants were acquitted
may be punished by imprisonment
(Sec. 5I46 Kirby's Digest), the
Judgment of acquittal cannot be re-
versed. Sec. 26l8 Kirby's Digest.
Therefore, the only useful purpose
of this appeal is to point out errors
in the rulings of the trial court, if
any occurred.
The instructions given by the
court, which may be found in the
statement of facts, are all erroneous
as applied to the facts of this case.
These instructions might be correct
under such cases as Glass State,
As Ark l73, and Henry v. State.
II Ark. 1873, which were proSecu-
tions for sales under the act. But
this is a prosecution for maintaining
a place where liquors are allowed to
be given away, and as to sales, under
the same section, are inapplicable
The object of this statute against
the clandestine sale of liquors is too
well known to require any discus
sion. 1t was not aimed at mere
sales or gifts of liquors, other
statutes covered those subjects, but
it was aimed at places maintained
where intoxicating liquors were
either sold or given away. 1t was
against the maintenance of such
places, considered by the legislature
to he harmful to the public morals,
that this legislation was directed.
Its salutary object would be largely
defeated if confined to sa es, and
the legislature did not conhne it to
sales but made it equally forbid the
maintenance of places where liquors
are given away, or kept for sale or
gift or allowed to be given away
and it is the dut, of the courts to
enforce it as written. This i'm
portant part of the statute was
totally ignored bv the trial court,
and there was evidence sufficient to
have justified the jury in convicting
the defendants if they had been
properly instructed And there
we're no better instructions, indeed,
than to give them the language of
the law itself. 1t is plain, easy of
comprehension, and needs no ex-
planation.
The instructions asked by the
State were substantially the statute,
and should have been given; and
had they been given the State would
have been entitled to conviction
had the States evidence, the sub
stance of which is set out in the
statement of facts, been believed by
the jury.
The judgment of the court is
that the trial court erred in giving
the instructions which were given,
and in refusing to give the instruc-
tions asked by the State.