In this case, the State chose to proceed under Section 1936 of the 1927 Code, rather than Section 1945-a1, or some other applicable provision of the same Code.
A review of Sections 1934 to 1943 thereof, both inclusive, reveals the fact that the offense here charged necessitates: First, a consignor and consignee; second, the transportation; and third, the lack of proper marks or labels. State v. Edwards,
However, the record before us discloses no proof that there was a consignor or consignee for the intoxicating liquors in controversy, as contemplated by said legislative enactments; nor is there any showing that there was a "transportation," within the purview of that law. Consequently, the State did not establish its case. No benefit will result from a restatement of the discussion contained in the Edwards and Drain cases.
Because of the holdings under those authorities, the judgment of the trial court must be, and is, reversed. — Reversed.
STEVENS, C.J., and EVANS, FAVILLE, De GRAFF, ALBERT, MORLING, and WAGNER, JJ., concur.