The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-11-21
AUTOMOBILES q.
N CASE Of LIQUOR

Found guilty in the circuit court OF
Hanover county of transporting
ninety gallons Of ardent spirits and
condemned to the auetioner block
the Packard automobile of Mrs.
Kate Lan6ers. failed in the supreme
court OF appeals yesterday to secure
a reversal OF the sentence, Judge
Martin =. Burks holding that it's for
fixture to the commonwealth Is IN
strict accordance with the statute
law.
The question involved the court
said. il; not the innocence or inc
owner, but the guilt OF the vehicle;
and, If the owner is not a participant
In the offense, its liability to forfeiture
is dependent upon the guilty knowi-
edge Of the person lawfully In charge
of the vehicle In order to determine
the liability of the v.hicle tn forfeit
turc, the statute makes no presunfp-
ton against either the owner or the
occupant. but does against the per-
son in charge.
In tho agreed statement of facts
relative to the Csc, Mrs. Landers
was held blameless of any intent Ito
use her car for The transportation OF
liquor She knew, however, that her
son, l.. l. J.iliGt Ts. ildb thhFii 49,
ma chine to Baltimore, where he, had
gone with her consent TO secure miss
ing parts to the sl.T5h car which she
had purchased, there only a few days
before.
On tho return "Trip. the son was
CO otursd by city Sergeant Chichester.
of fredericksburg. as the ill-fated
machine sped through Hanover
county with ninetg gallons ct Mary
land booze aboard when the author
tiles took steps TO dispose Of the car
and turn over the proceeds to the
state, as Is provided in cases where
vehicles are parties to bringing IN the
contrabrand stuff. Mrs Landers oh
jected strenucusiy. declaring that II
was her car and that II was used for
an illegal purpose entirely without
her consent. But--c'est la guerre--
1t was held that the machine was
guilty in the eyes Of the law because
of the guilty knowledge Of the person
in charge. and that decision was af-
firmed yesterday in the opinion of
Judge Burks
This ruling Of the appellate court
will have a direct bearing upon sever
al similar cases which are now pend
| ing and serves to clear UP for the
! first time a muc h contested CLAUSE in
the prohibition act. Attorney Harry
| NJ. Smith, ]r., was counsel tor Mrs
| Landers.
| In tine case of Bryant against the
| commonwealth. from the circuit
court Of Rockingham county the SUI
| prene court held that man cannot
! be punished twice for the same Of
! Tense. In this instance the defendant
| was fined for violation ,of an anti
! liquor. town ordinance and was in
/ dic,ed again in the circuit court.
! The Rockbridge circuit court was
| upheld in the imposition Of small
I fines for violations Of the statute
| against the use ~ scines in fishing In
| that county.
| The Office Of tho attorney general
| was successful in an cases decided
| by tho court yesterday. One Of these
| involved the fixing Of a residence for
| taxation purpose The case was
/ that II Brown against the COMMON
| wealth. coming from the circuii
| court of Clarke county. Brown
/ claimed Washington as his hona-fds
/ home The circuit court thought
! otherwise ard was upheld by the APP.
| pellate tribunal =