The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1911-01-24
MAY KEEP 1 BOOZE !: Q
Supreme Cert Decides Decides Ihat ~ Having Il i
quoF for Personal $, d! Use
DOES not VIOLATE Law
In Passing on 9. Disputed Section Of
the Liquor Law the. States SITS. high
est Legal Tribunal Reverses o
Circuit and Gives Man q New
Trial. s

-
Trial.
Holding that; it is not unlawful
to have whiskey in possession for
personal use, and defining the pow
ers of the Act Of 1909 with refer
ence to the sale Of whiskey clearly,
the Supreme Court reversed the
spartanburg County Court. in the
case of Elias Rookard, who was con-
victed for violation Of the Act. The
opinion Is by Associate Justice Woods
and construes clearly the several sec
tions OF the Act, which have never
before been reviewed by the Supreme
Court. .1;t$1gs...5E' ~ ~. -,
The defendan: was convicted in
Spartanburg County in January Of
last year, on the charge of having
whiskey in his possession and was in
dicted under tho section Of the Act
Of 1909, which ends: "And which
if drunk to excess will produce in
toxication, except as hereinafter pro-
vided." No question as to the con-
stitutionality. Of the Act was raised
in. the appeal, brIt the defendant con-
tended that the Circuit Judge erred
in his construction If the statute,
when he charged the jury in effect
that the statute makes the mere
keeping in possession liquor by
ia private individual a criminal
offense;' and that, therefore, the
jury should convict if they
found that the defendant had liquor
in his possession even If they SHOULD
find that he had not ,unlawfully re-
eeiyed nor accepted it and, had not
kept 1t In possession for an unlawful
USE sy;I i .i,is as{ils
1the decision of the Supreme Court
says that the question is whether the
Circuit Judge was right Tin holding
the Act of 1sOs,to prohibit and make
criminal the keeping in possession OF
liquor in this State under all cir
cumstances, without regard to the
manner of acquiring possession or.
the purpose for which the liquor was
acquired. 1T Seems clear that the
statute, cannot be so construed" says
the opinion. The, Court continues:
"Suchi construction would make the
Act itself destructive, for, other Sec.
tlons of this Act, as well as portions
of the dispensary statute Of 1907,
recognized by this statute as still in
force, provide for the sale Of liquor
by the county dispensaries, and GER
tainly a legal sale and purchase car
ried, the right to the purchaser to
keep in his possession the liquor he
has purchased, provided he does not
apply 1t to an unlawful use.."
;The Court continues that one may
lawfully keep in his possession liquor
purchased for personal. use under the
protection of the Interstate COM
merce clausefof the Federal Constl-
tuition. '.Any attempt" says the de-,
cision, "by the General Assembly to
interfere with this right would be
futile and the presumption is very
strong against the legislative inten-:
ton to make such an attempt In
deed, the right to keep In posses
sion liquor so purchased, is expressly
recognized in Section 2S or the Dis
pensary Act of 1907, which has not
been repealed"
:. The Court says that it follows that
the. provision of the Act of 1903,
making it unlawful Ito keep in pos
session in this State" Intoxicating
liquors Except as hereinafter pro-
vided," means that it should be a
misdemeanor to keep in possession Ii
quor which had not been unlawfully
obtained, that is, obtained in a man
ner not recognized. as lawful by that
Act or the unrepealed provision Of
the Act Of 1907. or to keep in pos
session for sale or some other use
forbidden by the statute liquor law
fully obtained"
The conclusion is reached that a
new trial, Should besordered.