Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1915-09-28
PRIVILEGE
APPEAL TAKEN FROM
COCHISE COUNTY CASE
First Case, on Direct Right Of
Resident to Import for "Per-
sonal USe," Is Appealed to the
Supreme Court.

S0ndl use, is Appedleu ~ tliO
Supreme Court.
TOMBSTONE, Ariz., Sept. q (spe-
ciaD The Supreme court will have
the question Of whether or not a per
son has a right to introduce whiskey
into the state, for his own use, or not
by the appeal of the case of William
Stansbury. which was tried before
Judge Lockwood this morning. STAINS
bury was arrested at Bowie on June
| 20 by Deputy Sheriff Prewitt, charged
with bringing or introducing liquor
into the State Of Arizona. The infor-
nation charges him with that offense
and does not allege that he brought it
in for any purpose whatever The
jury was empanelled and the case
tried all within an hour.
The State put on one witness, J. d.
Prewitt, the arresting officer, who tes-
titled regarding the arrest and identi-
fled a bottle Of whiskey which he took
from the defendant at the time. The
defendant then took the stand and did
not deny the facts as stated by the Of
ficer. but admitted that he purchased
the bottle in Lordsburg, New Mexico
and brought it into the State Of Ari-
zona for his own use.
The case was argued and submitted
to the jury, who were out but a short
time, returning a verdict of guilty
The court then fined Stansbury S25
and sentenced him to serve a term of
| ten days in the county Jail at hard
labor. A stay of execution was grant
ed pending the appeal Of the case to
the Supreme court The papers in
the appeal will be perfected at once
and the matter taken up before that
body as soon as possible.
The court refused to give the fol
lowing instruction, as asked for by
the defendant
You are instructed that if you are
satisfied, from the evidence, beyond
4 a. reasonable doubt. that the defend
ant did, on June 26th. 1915. introduce
into the State of Arizona Intoxicating
liquor, towit whiskey as charged in
the information but. believe. from the
evidence, that the defendant did 20
introduce the said liquor for the sole
purpose Of drinking it, or using it for
his own personal use, and without any
purpose or intent whatever TO dispose
of, give away barter. exchange. or
sell the said liquor in any manner
/ whatsoever, you will acquit the de-
fendant
The fact that the defendant i'm
tended, at the time he introduced said
liquor into the State of Arizona. TO
drink the same or use e for his own
/ personal use. is a defense. upon
which the defendant can rely. and. if
it is believed by you, from the evil
dence, will entitle him to be acquitted
by YOU"
The court, over the objections of
the defendant gave an instruction
similarly worded as the above except
that the words in the last line of the
. first paragraph read, will not entitIe
you to acquit the defendant" and in
the last line of the second paragraph.
VIII not entitle him to be acquitted
by you" The word mot" was also in.
serted before the words "a defense.
making it read lis not a defense"
The case is the first case i'm the
history of the prohibition law i'm Ari
iona where the matter has been di
rectly appealed to the Supreme court
on the question of the introduction OF
{. liquor for personal use has been
raised number Of cases on other
points have gone up to the Supreme
court, but not involving this point
which has been the contention OF
many lawyers that persons do have
the right under the Webb-Kenyon law
as passed by Congress 10 bring liquor
into dry State for their own use.
II was thought that the case tried
recently at Globe would bring this
matter up, but according to attorneys
here, that case was enormously re
ported and was not appealed as was
first thought.
The outcome of this case will be
watched with interest as this ques
ton is one that there is a difference
Of opinion on even within the ranks
. of the prohibitiOnists themselves. Mr.
Bucknam, the leader states that the
law was not intended to shut out q
man from bringing in liquor for hi.
, own use, while others claim that the
law means what it says Attorney
, General Jones in a recent opinion
stated that there was no exception in
the Introduction and if a person
brought Il for his own use he was a.
guilty as the man who brought IT in
for the purpose Of selling IL.
CALIFORNIA vAIuArlon