The farmer and mechanic., 1913-10-28


whlskey should be prima tacie evil
aence that the party in whose posses
sion 1t was found had it for the DUR
pose Of sale.
The act applied only to Union conn
- and there was no such special act
IN 1orce in Columbus county xban
TINS ofense is alleged to have been
commlttec. His Honor erred in re-
rusing the instruction.
Dissenting Opinion.
The dissenting opinion follows:
Lark, =. j.. dissenting:
mere was ample evidence to 60 to
the jury tending to show poesassion
OF the barrel OF whishey by the de-
!enuant- The. agent of the railroad
resumed that on the 5th OF August
1S1z' barrel Of Whiskey containing
about thirty gallons marked wis
Key and addressed to c. watkins
was put of the train at Hallsboro.
tnat soon after some one came to
.ne railroad office, signed the receipt
Tor this barrel. in the name Of Oscar
watkins, and carried it off. Another
witness testified that he saw a barrel
OF WhlSkey containing about thirty
gallons In the railroad warehouse at
ChadbOurn, n. c.. marked O. Watkins.
It Is also in evidence that the de-
fendant Oscar Watkins, lived about
nve miles from Chadbourn and about
eight miles from Hallsboro. There
Is no evidence that any other Oscar
Watkins lived in that section Nor
Is there any evidence tending to show
that the man who got the barrel Of
Wh1skey at Hal1sboro was not the con-
signee nor that his signature on the
books Of the company receipting for
the same was forgery.
Unless such signature was forgery,
hE ~
the forgery and received the whiskey
was guilty also Of larceny. then there
was evidence to go to the jury that
the defendant was in possession Of
thirty gallons of whiskey and pos
sibly Of sixty gallons. for there was
one barrel consigned to him at Halls
boro and another at Chadbourn
This evidence was more than Scin-
tilla-
There IS no presumption OF law
| that any one committed two felOnies
larceny and forgery. The entry was
made in due course Of business Re-
cefptlng for the Whiskey on the rail-
road books In the name of Oscar
Watkins and taking it away in the
absence Of any evidence to the con-
trary was certainly sufficient to go to
the jury on the question Of possession
This was all the evidence that the
trace the whiskey to his possession
| It was easy for the defendant to mega
tive this fact if he did not receive the
Whiskey and he would have done SO
if he could. There is no evidence to
show that there was another 0. Wat
kins In that section. The evidence
was sufficient to satisfy the jury an6
did satisfy the jury and did satisfy
them that the defendant was the
at one depot, if you find that 1t wa.
addressed to him and receipted for il
his name.
His Honor correctly charged th'
jury: ''The possession Of one barre
! Of whiskey shipped to the defendan
at one depot if you find that it wa.
/ shipped to him and receiDted for b.
him, and the shipping Of another bar
rel TO him at another date, If you 81
; find, are circumstances tending t
show that the defendant sold whis
!, key as charged, but that Is for yol
to say" In s. v. Barrett, 1873 N. c
$50, which was an Indictment unde
2 the Union county statute, which mad
!, the possession Of more than one quar-
| of whiskey prima facie evidence o
e an intent to SELL Walker, j.. says i
1 his concurring opinion, that 1nde
' pendent Of the statue (the de1endan
9 having in possession two flve-galio
: kegs, a half gallon jug and one pin
: bottIe) having with him~so large
quantity Of liquor in packages OF oil
t ferent sizes and covered over with
= Ian robe. was sufficient OF itself t
i constitute prima facie evidence OF tn
e defendants guilty possession.
n The mere fact that reference wa
! made to the statute did not preJudlc
the defendant when his pOsseSslO
: PENDENT of the statute (the defendaI
y under the circumstances shown by IN
: evidence, and not disputed. was sur!
:. cient to carry the case to the ury.
Il In this case there was ample ev,
. dence to satisfy jury that the a.
! fendant was in the possession
d thirty gallons receipted for ana ca
ried away in his name. and II u
possession in the Barrett case
"a gallons was sufficient 20 car
Q the case to the jury, certainty lne'
:. was more than sufficient IN 'n
le case. ;,
j. In s. Y. Barrett, Brown. J., IN 2
is dissenting opinion, says: 1rrespec,l'
~ L