The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1908-12-08
IMPORTANT LIQUOR CASE.
Order Taken at Easley by Agent for
North Carolina Liquor House
Constitutes Sale Within
the State.
News and Courier.

lie Brown jag at klldareF came near
DluNeino the States Of North Car
olino md South Carolina into war
with each other. \ gallon Of North
Carolina liquor has arrayed against
each other in the legal arena the two
authors of the Carey-Cothran law,
and now the same gallon Of whiskey
has divided the supreme court Of
South Carolina.
In the case of the State against l..
r. Small, the supreme court, by d.
vided opinion, has affirmed the low
er court, and it is decided that when
liquor drummer comes into the
State, takes orders for whiskeP and
accepts the money for the same, for
walding the order to his house out
side the State. and having the liquor
shipped into the State to the pur-
chaser, that it is a sale within the
State and violation Of the laws Of
the State.
Small, representing a North Caro-
lima liquor firm, was arrested in the
town Of Easley for a violation Of the
town ordinance, which is the same as
the State law against selling whiskeH.
He pleaded that the transaction was
not sale within the State. He was
fined by the mayor, the case was ap-
pealed to the circuit court, which sus-
tanned the mayor, and then the case
was taken to the supreme court, which
sustained the lower court. A rehear-
ing was asked and granted, and now
the supreme court has again sustained
the lower court, holding that the
transaction was a sale within the
State and a violation Of the law.
In the appeal Of the case the prose-
cution was represent by Mr.. J. P.
Carey, of Pickens. and Small by Mr..
T. P. Cothran, Of Greenville-these
being the two distinguished lawyers
and legislators who framed the law
that was being interpreted.
The opinion of the court, by Chief
Justice Pope, says:
"After judgment Of this court af-
firming the judgment Of the circuit
court and the mayor Of Easley, hold
) ing that there was consummation Of
a sale Of one gallon Of liquor; upon
application Of defendant-appellant a
rehearing was had.
"We were inclined at one time to
view the appellants position that
there being no delivery Of the whiskey
after it was paid for, that such con-
duct was not sale; but, upon reflec-
tion, we think that our first decision
was correct and that there was a sale
in the eyes of the law; we hold now
that it was an error in the appellant
to hold that there was no sale.
"There is no doubt thai the defend
ant, as agent Of Schuman & Co.. So
I icited from one Roper the purchase
of one gallon of liquor, for which he
received payment in full, giving an
order on Schuman & Co., of Sails
bury, N. c., setting forth the goods
sold,, the price paid, the mode of
shipment and directing Shuman &
Co. to express the same at once. Small,
the appellant, in his testimony admit
ted that he represented Shuman &
Co., who were in the whiskey business; :;
took orders and mailed the orders to
his house. which said orders were al
ways filled, the house never refusing
to ship liquors so sold.
"All the findings Of fact by the
mayor and the circuit judge sustain
the proposition that the sale Of in
to2ioants was consummated; there
was certainly a scintilla Of evidence.
some material evidence which. if
true, would tend to establish the is
sue in the mind OF reasonable juror. !
Taylor vs.. R. R., 7S S. c., 556.
"The defendant claims, however,
that if all the evidence be admitted
as true it did not amount in law to a
pale. This cannot be true
The opinion quotes number of de-
isions on the point in question.
In Pregnall VS.. Miller & Kelly it
WAS held that ''chan@e Of title takes
eolace when the bargain is struck. and
may pass before payment and be-
fore actual delivery: and where pro-
perty is sold on credit, with posses
, sion given. and where ~ is sold for
ash and yet left with the vendor for
-endee's convenience, and subject to
his control, title changes and the sale
..-o1o+o -