Dеfendant was convicted of violating the prohibition laws on a complaint framed under the provisions of section 12 of what is known as the Bonner Law (Act of February 8, 1915, Aсts 1915, p. 44), charging that the defendant had in his possession at оne time more than one half-gallon of spirituous liquors, or more than two gallons of vinous liquors, 'or more than five gallons of malted liquors in kegs. The undisputed evidence showed that the defendant had in his house a larger quantity of the liquors and beverages prohibited than allowed under the provisions of the law. The evidence of the defendant. was to the effect that these beverages had been lawfully acquired by him for his personal use prior to June 30, 1915, when the prohibition laws went into effect, making it an offеnse *18 to possess or have in possession more thаn the specified quantity of prohibited beverages. The affidavit "and complaint alleges that the offense was committed on or about the 2d day of August, 1915. The allegations of the complaint were sustained by the-testimony of the state’s witnesses, both as to the amount of the prohibited beverages found in the defendant’s house and the dаte of their possession by the defendant.
It is the contention of the' defendant that, having lawfully acquired the prohibited beverages prior to the time whеn these prohibition laws went into effect, making it a violation of law to have in possession more prohibitеd liquors than the designated quantities, it was not a violation оf law to have these liquors thus acquired in possession in such prohibited quantities after the law became operative; that a conviction would be violative оf his constitutional rights as guaranteed to him under sections 1 аnd 35 of the state Constitution of 1901 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The defendant raised thеse questions by appropriate methods in the trial court, and makes the same insistence in brief filed here. Thе Supreme Court, in the case of
Southern Express Co. v. Whittle,
Affirmed.