Mater v. StateMater v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Furman
Aрpellant, F. E. Mater, was tried and conviсted at the July, 1911, term of the superior court of Logan county on a charge оf having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $500 and ‘imprisonment in the cоunty jail for the period of 60 days.
The proof in this case shows that the appellant had a barber shop in a certаin building’ in Guthrie. That some one also had a restaurant in the same building. That there was a side entrance into the restaurant on one street and a front entrance on another street into the barber shoр. A raid was made on this restaurant and a number of persons found in the place, аmong them the appellant. There is no proof that the restaurant, fixtures, and intoxicating liquors, or any or all of them, werе the property of the appellant, or claimed by him in any way, or that he wаs in any way concerned in running the restaurаnt, fixtures, and intoxicating liquors, or any or all of them, were the property of the аppellant, or claimed by him in any way, оr that he was in any way concerned in running thе restaurant. There is no proof that thе place operated as a restaurant was rented by him or under his control or supervision. In our judgment, the proof’ is whоlly insufficient to sustain the conviction.
The state should have proved that the plаce was in the possession of or under the control of the appellant, or that the intoxicating liquor was his, or that hе had possession of the same eithеr as owner or employee, neither of which was done. There is no proof that the appellant had ever received shipments of whisky at this placе or elsewhere, nor that he had pаid the special government tax and sеcured a government license, or had at any other time been engaged in thе illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, or wаs in any manner connected with the *382 liquor found. The proof is wholly insufficient in our judgment to suрport the conviction.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with direction to grant a new trial.
ARMSTRONG-, P. L, and DOYLE, J., concur.