122 Va. 798 | Va. | 1917
delivered the opinion of the court.
There was a demurrer to the indictment, which the court overruled. The grounds of the demurrer were: First, “that said indictment failed to state the violation of any law of the Commonwealth of Virginia,” and second, “that said indictment in the charging part thereof, mingles acts that, if committed, are not violations of the statute with acts that may be such violations.” After the demurrer was overruled the Commonwealth was required to elect for which offense it would go to trial, and it “elected to proceed against the defendant on the charge contained in the indictment that the defendant did unlawfully have in his possession at the same time two quarts of whiskey.”
The prohibition law, under which the indictment was framed, did not go into effect till after November 1, 1916, and prior to that date it was not an offense for a person to have in his possession at one time two quarts of whiskey. So that every fact charged in the indictment may be true and yet the defendant be not guilty of any offense. Whenever this is true, the indictment is bad on demurrer. Shiflett’s Case, 114 Va. 876, 77 S. E. 606; Young’s Case, 15 Gratt. (56 Va.) 664; Bruce’s Case, 26 W. Va. 153. Whether an act is lawful or unlawful is a question of law and not of fact, and it is the province of an indictment to state facts and not conclusions of law.
In the instant case time is of the essence of the offense, and should have been so stated as to charge the unlawful possession after November 1, 1916. Cool’s Case, 94 Va. 799, 26 S. E. 411; Shifletfs Case, supra.
Reversed.