Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1929-01-04
u. 8. Court Rules Ram Buyers
Can Be Prosecuted.

The Federal District Court at Philadel-
phla Pa, last week handed down a decis-
ion that the buyer of illegal liquor can be
prosecuted if he is party to its transac-
ton.
The decision. regarded by Federal au-
thorities at Philadelphia as of the highest
importance in the enforcement of the ma
tional prohibition law, was handed down
by Judge W. H. Kirkpatrick in the case Of
Alfred E. Norris, New York broker. Norris
was fined $500 and will appeal the decision.
Judge kirkpatrick said the mere pur-
chase of liquor is not an offense under the
national prohibition act and that the pur-
chaser cannot be convicted of aiding and
abetting the sale.
ut does not follow, however" said the
court. where transportation is required by
agreement there may not be an indictment
| of the buyer and seller for conspiracy TO
transport, even though that which is con-
templated is simply the delivery of the
thing sold. Transportation Of Intoxicating
liquor is made distinct substantive offense
by the act. 1t is not necessarily involved
in every sale"
Norris, along with Joel D. Kerper. Phila-
delphia, society bootlegeer." was charged
with conspircy to transport liquor illegally.
He pleaded nolO contendere. but contended
the purchase Of liquor was no crime either
under the national prohibition law or the
Volstead act.
Kerper. who is serving eighteen months
the Federal Penitentiary at Atlanta. was
brought to Philadelphia and pleaded guilty
after Judge Kirkpatrick said he would not
nflict punishment il he admitted the
charge.
Norris, through counsel, admitted in the
argument of the case two weeks ago that
dered liquor from Kerper and that the
latter sent it by express to Norris in New
York variously labeled as paint. varnIsh.
olive oil and other products.
in respect to the transportation" said
the court in its decision, Morris did far
more than know and acquesce. He also
did more than merely let Kerper know that
he was in the market for liquor. By his
repeated orders for whisky. teleponed from
New York to Philadelphia. he became |
party to an agreement which required
Kerper to transport the liquor and he
promised to pay him for doing it,
Thus he not only solicited but bound
Kerper. by such obligation as the charac-
ter of the transportation permitted. to
commit the offense. AS was pointed out
in United States vs.. Hottie, the word com
nit in the conspiracy statute means no
more than bring about. 1t is beyond all
question that the purpose and intent OF the
agreement was to bring about the trans
portation Of the liquor from wherever it
may have been to Norris home.
THE conclusion is % that conviction
may be had Of a buyer and seller of
liquor for conspiracy to transport liquor
in case where an agreement is that the
delivery of the liquor sold is to be effected
by transportation from the seller to the
buyer, and (2) that an order by purchaser
to a booilegeer located at distance TO de-
liver liquor followed by transportation. de-
livery and payment is sufficient evidence
of such an agreement.
ut is the clear intent of Congress that
punishment for transporting liquor shall
be by fine only. In this case the con-
spiracy element adds nothing by way of
aeeravation, The sentence imposed should
not exceed that which would follow the
conviction for transportation only"