The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-06-18
GET WHISKEY
FOR A FRIEND
The Delivery Does Not
Violate.
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Anniston Man Had Made Order for
Himself and Friend.
had Been Fined a sum Of ESQ fer vie-
lation OF the General Prehi-
bition Law ~ Annis-
ton City Court.

II q man in Alabama, not soliciting
orders, transmits money to q liquor
dealer in another State to pay FOL
whiskey wanted by himself and q
friend. and when the package comes
divides 1t. he does not violate the pro
hibitfon laws of Alabama. that Wal
the substance OF the decision OF tbs
Supreme Court OF Alabama In the case
of Tom Vernon vs.. the State of Ala
bama. appealed from the Admission City
Court.
The decision contempIates that the
person who placed the order for whis-
key for himself and friend was an un-
compensated and unrewarded agent OF
the other. Also, II IL assumed. as In
the Vernon case, that the price Of the
booze Is sent to the out-of-state ter
ritory.
The Admission City Court thought diff
ferentiy OF the matter and convicted
Vernon. imposing fine OF $50 in the
trial of the Indictment, which charged
violation of the general prohibition
statute and Section 1853 Of thu Code
of 1907.
The facts were that Tom Vernon, Of
Admission, was requested by q man
named Sargent to order for him two
quarts Of whiskey from Tennessee, end
gave him $1.25 which with 81 which
the defendant owed sargent, would ex-
actly pay for the refreshments Mr.
VERNON took notion that he would
put In an additional order on his own
hook for two quarts more. It all came
in single package. which Mr.. Vernon
opened on arrival and going around Ia
Sargent's place handed him the two
quarts paid for.
1t seems that the grand Jury though,
this act such an offense against pro-
hibition as would fall either within
the terms Of the Statewide prohibition
act or Section 1853. Hence the I'm
dictment which followed, the first three
counts being couched In the phrase-
oiogy Of the prohibition statute and
the last two charging that the defend
ant sold, gave away or otherwise dis.
posed OF spirituoua. etc, liquors with.
out license and contrary to Jaw"
There IL q section OF the Code which
allows conviction for q violation 81
Section 1888 in an Indictment preferred
under the general prohibition Jaw pro.
vided there 10 sufkifent evidence, I,
seems that the State was resting its
hopes mostly on the latter section. but
in an elaborate opinion Justice Nc.
Court In this case. declares that the
case does not come within that sec.
ton.
Section 1858 provides a punishment,
for any person who makes. aids. o,
abets, or who counseis or procures ar
unlawful sale or unlawful purch ase Of
unlawful gift or other unlawful d.R.
position of spirituous, vinous, etc. IL.
quors, prohibited by law from betns
sold, given away or otherwise dispose
OF; or any person who shall act a,
agent or assisting friend Of the seIie
or purchaser in procuring or effsctin,
the unlawful sale or purchase Of an
such liquors, etc.
The State insisted that Mr., Vernoy
had assisted in procuring an unla wfu
sale ana was therefore guilty. Justic,
Mcclellan makes the distinct polni
that the sale in question was not al
unlawful SALE inasmuch az II was crm
pleted without the State of Alabams
and the whiskey became the property
OF the two men before It ever strucl
the border of Alabama. Moreover, b,
declared that simply delivering thu
whiskey was not q violation in thu
sense OF otherwise disposing" Gf tn,
same, because in previous decision
OF the court IL was construed that tn,
phrase fell under the ejusdem genera
rule. meaning that as Mr.. Vernon
neither gave or sold the whiskey h,
violated no Law, the word dispose" o
losing some of its breadth.
under the original package case
rendered by the Supreme Court of tn
United States" writes Justice McClel
Ian, 'the holding must be that the II
quors delivered by the defendant T.