The Idaho Republican. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1904-1932, 1913-06-13
POSSESSION OF BOOZE IN VIOLA
TON OF THE LAW
Pocatello Tribune.

Whether the possession of guam
tity of liquor transported from wet
to dry territory within the state OF
Idaho constitutes violation of the
local option laws of Idaho was the
point put up to Judge Carl Davis
| yesterday afternoon. It is the first
instance of this point being raised.
The case grew out of a complaint
filed again Edward Poppleton, Lewis
Larson and Oliver Brown, charging
them with transporting liquors from
wet into prohibition territory for un-
lawful purposes.
The defense demurred to the COM
plant and in short attacked the COM
plant on the ground that it must be
proved by the prosecution that there
was intent to unlawfully dispose of
the liquor, and that the case could
not stand on the simple claim of hav-
ing the liquor in ones possession.
I'm heartily in sympathy with the
observance of the laws" said Col.
Ferguson, representing Defendant
Poppleton, "but I despise legal an
archy".
He held that there was no law that
would deprive the individual of the
rightful possession of liquor for his
own use and that the prosecution had
not shown that the liquor was not
intended for individual use, nor did
the complaint cite that defendant in
tended to dispose of it in unlawful
manner, and that the mere allegation
could not stand. He cited many
authorities in support of his conten-
ton.
County Attorney Smith defended
his position by quoting certain sec
lions of the statutes which prohibited
the shipment of liquor to "any per-
son. and held that under that Sec
tion one could not ship to even him
self, or he is guilty of misdemean-
or. He so construed the law that the
individual could not have any amount
of liquor in his possession without
violating the law. Assistant county
attorney Merrill believed that the
possession of any liquor is prima fac
be evidence of violation and that in
stead of the prosecution having to
show that it was unlawfully disposed
of, it was up to the defense to prove
that his possession Of the liquor was
for any lawful purpose, an idea that
was utterly secuted by the defense.
Attorney Hopson for the defense
took the position that carrier Of the
liquor, who purchased the goods in
wet territory, was not guilty of tech
nincal infraction unless he made a
delivery of the goods and no such
delivery was cited in the complaint
against Poppleton.
It is the first time the issue on
a technical point involving the rights
Of possession or the operation of the
Individual as a carrier has been pre-
,ented to district court in this state
at least under similar circumstances.
md as many authorities were cited,
Judge Davis took the matter under
,dvisement until 10 o'clock this
morning.
This morning Judge Davis stated
hat he had gone into the authorities
n thorough manner, estimated the
intent of the legislature and interpre-
alton of the statutes by the supreme
court, and gave as his opinion that
he law does not require any specific
intent to be shown, and while there
$ no specific violation in the possess
on. he held on a certain section Of
he statutes regarding the transport
ing of liquors into dry territory. In
his case the defendant is charged
With transporting liquor.