The farmer and mechanic., 1913-10-28


pgrpose, p, if unexplained. did he have
The court carefully and c,r-a,,,,.
charged the jury that fhav ..rn.'s- 80 i,
SATISFIED beyond a reasonable dopht
lhat the defendant sold liquor Il per
sonS unknoEn; that the Possession -
the Wh.skey II the jury should find
lhat n was shipped 10 ana reocjrt-1
Tor by him are circumstances tendinr
10 show that the defendant sold
Whskey, but that it was for the tury
% SAY what was the weight u be
gwen 10 those circumstances"
me jury found the defendant
uItE. Inere being no evidence that
'ieie was any other O. Watkins in tha.
heis shcorhood, and not the slightest
evidence tending TO show that any
one committed forgery or larceny 70
set possession Of the whiskey nor
,hat the railroad company would have
delivered The barrel without iba
ldentlncati0n Of the consienee. Could
the jury find otherwise than that
.he oefendant obtained possession Of
the Whishey? Under the authority of
the concurring opinion Of Walker, J..
ana the dissenting opinion Of Brown.
! >, IN ,. v. Barrett supra the posses
| sion or one barrel WAS the possession
ol three tunes as much as was neces-
| sary TO constitute sufficient possession
70 submit the question Of having the
liquor to sell. II the defendant re-
| ceived both barrels, which he did not
| deny by any evidence, then the case
was SIX times as strong against the
defendant as in Barrett's case.
! The public policy Of a State is de-
ciared by the Legislature, which is
! the law making body The policy of
TINS state in regard 10 suppressing
the traffic in intoxicating liquor was
clearly declared by the Legislature OF
1907, and ratified on a referendum IN
1908 by an overwhelming majority
at the ballot box. The province OF
the courts is to construe the law IN
! accordance with the intent with which
it was enacted. Whenever the courts
In this State have found defect that
| wouid interfere with the enforcement
Of this law, the Legislature has
promptly corrected it. And the pub
lie intent 10 do this has been declared
Search and Seizure" law Of 1913
chapter ~, whose title is ITO secure
the enforcement Of the laws against
the sale and manufacture Of intoxi-
eating liquor"
It is doubtful if jury could be
empaneled in this State who would
not find upon this uncoatradicted evi-
! G6nCS tnaI the Oe1enO2nC fcCctEc &c
this whiskey and that the presunp o
ton which, under the opinions in S
V. Barrett above cited. was raised
from the possession of this quantity
OF liquor, was not rebutted. Indeed
there was no evidence whatever tend
ing to rebut either the possession Q
the whiskey by the defendant or tina
he sold it, Certainly this Jury o
the vicinage" had no REASONABLE
doubt and the defendant sought t
get the court 20 hold him not guilt,
as matter OF law and not of fact.
His Honor did not charge as h
might have done under the authorit,
. Of the opinions in S. v. Barrett abov
! cited that the possession OF SO large
+ quantity of whiskey raised a pre-
; sumption that he had the whiske
, | for sale nor that the whiskey bein
: consigned to the name Of the defend
, ant and receipted for It in his name
, raised q presumption that he receive
lit. The court merely charged tha
the jury should consider these as evi
! dence, and unless they were satisfie
!. ! beyond a reasonable doubt that tn
> defendant sold whiskey, to find hi
! not guilty. The court might we'll hav
. charged that the delivery of the barre
, to the person who receipted for 1t i
the name Of the defendant and h
(. did not do 80 and left the evidenC
on both points to the jury not as pre-
: sumption, but merely as circumstar
: caa to ha weighed by them.