The farmer and mechanic., 1913-10-28
OPINION AFFECTS
PROHIBITION LAW
Supreme Courts Decision In
Case From Columbus
NEW TRIAL IS ORDERED
Because Evidence Is Consid-
cred insufficient = Shows
That Barrel of Whiskey Was
Consigned to Defendant and
Receipted For In His Name.
No Actual Sale Proved.

OF considerable interest because OF
us bearing upon the prohibition law,
IL the opinion handed down by the
Supreme Court the past week in the
case OF State vs. Watkins, from CO.
iunbus county. in which Oscar Wat
kins was found guilty Of selling in
toxicating liquors to persons whose
names are unknown"
The defendant asked Judge FerAu-
uon, presiding, to instruct the Jury to
bring in a verdict Of not guilty. The
Judge refused to so instruct The de-
c,sion Of the Supreme Court ia that
,he judge should have SO instructed
the jury, in view OF the evidence be-
dissenting opinion, written by
A dissenting opinion. written by
Chief Justice Clark and assigned by
Justice Allen, was filed. Justice
Brown wrote the majority opinion,
which follows:
The Opinion.
The following Is all the evidence
introduced In the trial Of this case.
G. w. Rushing, witness for the
State. testified as follows:
II saw on barrel In the railroad de-
pot at HallsborO, marked o. Wat
sins This barre, had whiskey mark
ed on it. The barrel looked like it
would hold about thirty gallons. I do
not know what was In the barrel
H o. Harrell, witness for the State.
testified as follows:
Il am agent for the Atlantic Coast
Line Railroad Company at Hallsboro.
y. c., on the 9Th day Of August, 1912,
q barrel containing about thirty gal
Ions, marked .. Watkins and also
marked on the barrel 'Whiskey,' was
put off the train at HalisborO, n. c.
Some time after the arrival Of this
barred, and while I was agent. some
ore came to the railroad office and
know whether Oscar Watkins carried
the barrel away Or not. I do not
know who got the barrel l only
know that some one receipted for II
In the name Of Oscar Watkins. l DC
not know where the defendant lives
did not know Oscar Watkins at the
time the barrel was receipted for.
c. l.. Benton, witness for the state
testified as follows:
81 saw a barrel OF whiskey, con
taining about thirty gallons, in thu
railroad warehouse at Chadbourn
~. c., marked o. Watkins. When
saw the barrel of whiskey In tn
warehouse it was in bad order ant
the whiskey was leaking out. ] saw
Some parties catching the whiskey a
il was leaking out of he barrel. drink
ing it, and others catching it In buck
cts and carrying 1t away.
The defendant. Watkins, was no
there when l saw 1t. I do not knov
what became Of the barrel Of whis
Key Oscar Watkins lives az I'm
Log. about FIVE miles from ChadbourT
and about eight miles from Halls
boro'
1t Is to be observed that the de
sendant is indicted for selling whiske
20 some person unknown TO the JuN
While this form of indictment Is rec
ognized, yet it is as such lncumDer
on the State to offer evidence tencln
20 prove an actual sale to the ur
known person as if his name ha
been inserted In the indictment
State VS.. Cowdy, 145 n. c.. 432.
State VS.. Dunn. 158 N. c., 564.
State VS.. Mcintyre, 1Ss n. c.. 60
There is no evidence tnat tne u, us
fendant in this bill ever received u
whiskey much less sold it. The ev
dence wholly fails to identify tn
Oscar Watkins with the person WE
received the whiskey.
The receipted book was not IN ev
dence, and there was no attempt
prove the defendants handwriting
we'll as no attempt to prove that
ever sold any of it.
This case seems to have been trlt
as il the act of 1913, chapter "A. ne
been ~ effect. That act creates Nv
new offenses in respect to intoxicatlI
liquors as well as new rule or eV
dence contained in section 5, but IN
act went into effect on April 1st. 191
This bill was returned in Mover
Der, 1912. and the trial took place al
judgment was pronounced in Fe
ruary, 1913, therefore, the act
1913 can have no bearing upon II
case and it must be determined una
the law in force prior to that act.
Now does the act considered by
in State VS.. Barrett, 1873 \. G.. 8