Case Name: STATE v. COURLAS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1913-12-01
Citations: 134 La. 364
Docket Number: No. 20,155
Parties: STATE v. COURLAS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 134
Pages: 363–365

Head Matter:
(64 South. 141.)
No. 20,155.
STATE v. COURLAS.
(Dec. 1, 1913.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 1914.)
(Syllabus by Mditonal Staff.)
Criminal Law (§ 147*) — Limitations Applicable — Sale or Liquor — Statutes — Prescriptions.
Rev. St. § 986, providing that no person shall be prosecuted for any fine or forfeiture unless the prosecution shall be instituted within six months from the time of incurring such fine or forfeiture, applies only to cases where imprisonment cannot be inflicted as a punishment, and not to cases where it may be in the discre tion of the court, and hence was inapplicable to a prosecution for retailing spirituous liquors without a license, in violation of section 910, as amended by Acts 1902, No. 66, providing that whoever shall retail spirituous liquors without a license shall, on conviction, be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500, and, in default of fine and costs, shall be imprisoned for a term within the discretion of the court, or shall suffer a fine and imprisonment as the court may deem proper.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 271, 272; Dec. Dig. § 147.*]
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; John R. Laud, Judge.
Peter Courlas was convicted of retailing spirituous liquors without a license, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Murff & Thurber, of Shreveport, for appellant. R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., and W. A. Mabry, Dist. Atty., of Shreveport (G. A. Gondran, of Donaldsonville, of counsel), for the State.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
The accused was convicted under section 910 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by Act No. 66, p. 93, of 1902, of having retailed spirituous liquors without a license, and was sentenced to four months' imprisonment, and to a fine of $500, and, in default of paying this fine, to six months' imprisonment.
He does not claim that this sentence was not in conformity with said statute, but contends that under said statute the punishment cannot be imprisonment without fine, and that, inasmuch as all prosecutions for fines are prescribed by six months under section 986, Revised Statutes, the prosecution against him is prescribed; it having been commenced more than six months after the offense.
It is very plain that said section 9S6 has application only to eases where imprisonment cannot be inflicted as a punishment, and not to cases where it may be. Expressly so decided in State v. Jumel, 13 La. Ann. 399.
In State v. Markham, 15 La. Ann. 498, where the offense was punishable by fine alone, the prescription was held inapplicable for the reason that, on repetition, the offense would be punishable at hard labor.
Judgment affirmed.