Case Name: W. P. GREENWOOD v. STATE
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1913-05-07
Citations: 9 Okla. Crim. 342
Docket Number: No. A-1547
Parties: W. P. GREENWOOD v. STATE.
Judges: ARMSTRONG, P. J., and FURMAN, J., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Criminal Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 342–343

Head Matter:
W. P. GREENWOOD v. STATE.
No. A-1547.
Opinion Filed May 7, 1913.
(131 Pac. 940.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Illegal Sale — Prima Facie Evidence. The payment of the special tax required of liquor dealers by the United States by a defendant constitutes prima facie evidence of an intention tjieneeforth, during the term of the license, to violate the prohibition law.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Tulsa County Court; N. J. Gubser, Judge.
W. A. Greenwood was convicted of. violating the- prohibitory law, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Davidson & Williams, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. West, Atty. Gen., -Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jos. L. Hull, Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DOYLE, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Tulsa county, on October 31, 1911, of the offense of tmlawfully baying in his possession intoxicating liquors with intent to violate the prohibitory law. To reverse the judgment there was filed in this court December 21, 1911, a petition in error with ease-made.
Yarious errors are assigned, none of which we deem it necessary to discuss, for the reason that it appears from the testimony of the defendant as a witness on his own behalf that he is guilty of the offense charged. The defendant admitted the payment of the special tax required of liquor dealers by the United States, which designated his place of business as the place where the intoxicating liquors were found, and he admitted "that he had run that joint awhile." The term of the government license did not expire until the end of the following June. Even if the case was close, the several assignments of error are of such a trivial character as to be undeserving of any consideration.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.
ARMSTRONG, P. J., and FURMAN, J., concur.