*1 SUPREME COURT OP MISSOURI, State anything suspicion didn’t care until about it directed was toward him did and he it t o save his own skirts. testimony Attorney-General
The concedes that the proper, refusing was in error in al- court was question, low the witnesses the to- makes answer but point proof that when defendants made the offer ruling exception court made no on it and no saved was permit to the refusal of the court to it. He overlooks question justice the fact that the itself, addressed to the peace, suggested exception answer. An duly ruling sustaining saved to the court objection. prove then offer the witness question would answer the in the manner indicated question nothing exception added to the force of the al- ready noted. The court refused to allow answer question. ruling. if That was erroneous- Even question had not indicated answer, the offer merely the defendant showed what would answer, be the necessary again, and it for the court to rule nor except again ruling. for the defendant to to-the Boyd was the Braxie whom"the witness right prove its case, out and the defendant had a any credibility. fact which affect would For er- judgment ror the All concur. is reversed cause remanded. THE STATE LESLIE TOD GOOCH, GOOCH Appellants.
DAN GOOCH, May Two, Division 1926. Abolishing Act
1. APPEAL: of 1925: Motion in Arrest: Questions (Laws 1925, Tested Motion for New Trial. Act Since the 198) p. abolishing effect, questions pre motions in arrest went into assign appeal sented1 for those consideration are raised to be ments the motion for a new trial. Intoxicating Liquor. charging 2. An INFORMATION: information defendants, upon date, unlawfully possess intoxi- did named Vol. 314] v. Gooch. eating liquor, to-wit, wines, than one- certain which contained more per by volume, being potable
half of centum of alcohol complying capable beverage, and used as a otherwise *2 6588, 1919), (Sec. R. in form and the statute S. is sufficient sub- stance. Sufficiency. application prosecut- SEARCH
3. WARRANT: of the justice warrant, ing attorney peace a and to of the search the upon acted, the search are set out full which the sheriif many authority opinion, are, held, upon cases in the and the require- recently decided, sufficiently complied with the to have ments of the law. Application: Controverting -: Pacts Stated Therein.
4. Section statute, 25, 1923, 244, 1923, page of the Act of is valid Laws a justice upon presentation peace, the authorizes the of the by prosecuting attorney, stating application satisfaction to the probable justice appears is it facts from which unlawfully pos- intoxicating liquor cause to believe that is warrant; parties named, by and evi- issue a search sessed to proper- set out such is dence to controvert the facts so ly excluded. Intoxicating Liquor: SEARCH: Contraband: Destruction. A 5. search sheriff, warrant, by pursuance valid1search made of a by by part him. seized rendered a destruction a wine void 1923, intoxicating (Sec. 25, p. 244) The statute Laws declares existing contraband, right property on the with no therein to be found, possession part person by it is the search whose seizing destroy requires it. the officer after it LIQUORS: In Mo- Joint Possession: Admission: INTOXICATING 6. Suppress Evidence. tion It is immaterial whether admissions joint joint possession in their motion defendants suppress their search of obtained officers in the evidence raising specifically purpose dwelling for the were made house relating validity questions the search to the war- constitutional rant, they purpose, where the for a different whether were made defendants, jurisdiction and of the of the cause had court three that where under oath of each. So were made admissions brothers, joint jointly tried, jointly charged motion filed their house, dwelling suppress the search of obtained evidence each, “during stated, date» all the oath of under the and therein they occupied possession of their and were in aforesaid and times dwelling constituting “did home, house” that the officers their possession portion unlawfully de- of the wine into take information, together articles be- with certain other scribed SUPREME COURT OE MISSOURI,
State Gooch. longing defendants,” purpose only to these and that “for of in- voking rights their constitutional hereunder ad- defendants date,” mit of said wine on said there was sufficient evi- joint possession dence of of the wine to authorize a conviction of all three; particularly so where none of them testified and charge. offered no evidence to refute the Corpus Juris-Cye. p. Law, J., 1248, References: Criminal 16 C. Section 629, 27; 1266, p. 638, New; 87, J., 3349, p. n. Section n. 71 C. Section 43; 3353, p. 92, Intoxicating J., Liquors, n. Section n. 1 New. 33 C. 371, 675, 2; p. p. 683, 680, 385, p. Section n. Section n. Section New; 397, p. 689, 23; p. 691, New; 457, p. 29n. n. Section n. Section New; p. 761, n. 23 Section n. Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court.—Hon. H. David Special Judge.
Harris, Aeeirmed. appellants. &
Lamb Lamb for *3 (1) application in, The for warrant case search was insufficient. Mo. Constitution, -2, 23; art. secs. 11, p. Laws 1923, 244, 25; sec. v. 120; State 259 Lock, "W. S. 1 Lowry v. Rainwater, 157; 2Mo. 259 Tunnell, 70* State v. S. ~W.129; State v. 259 W. Dumbra v. Owens, 101; S. United 440; 268 S. 69 States, U. 1036; L. Giles v. Ed. Corp. United 284Fed. States, 208; Food Products Atlantic p. Chipi v. 288 McClure, 982; Fed. 24 9; R. O. L. 707, sec. Leddy, man v. Am. 663; 40 Dec. Bates, Commonwealth v. 105 Mass. 381; v. State, DeGraff 103 Pac. v. 538; Salter People Effelberg, 102 State, 719; Pao. v. 190 727; N. W. Cloberg, Supp. In 191 Y. 93; re N. Hannan v. 233 State, Cooley p. 249; Pac. on Limitations, 429; Const. State v. 198 Baltes, N. v. 285; 432; W. Cravens 256 State, S. W. G'ouled v. United 255 650. States, U. S. 65 Ed. 303, L. (2) sup overruling The court erred in the motion to press, because evidence showed the hearsay been on have and belief, and the court permit appellants refusing erred to part to show lack knowledge applicant. State v. 259 Lock, 116; S. State v. 262 v. Hall, W. S. W. Smith, 65; State S, 266 843; Miller, 265 SI W. State v. 1024; W. v. State 649: Yol. 1926. 314] v. State 269 W. 941; Huckobe, v. S. State 267 S.
Shellman,
W.
2
Buford,
Ex
500;
parte
691;
Price, 274 S. W.
State v.
v.
285;
Steele
N. W.
495;
Baltes,
L.
v.
Ed.
De
v.
People
757;
69 L. Ed.
S.
States,
United
267 U.
270 S. W.
State,
v.
58; Tenpenny
La
182 N. W.
Mater,
People
761;
Ed.
69 L.
504’,
v.
270 U. S.
989;
State,
Steele
v.
People
Christensen,
61;
v.
182 N. W.
Veen,
Yander
(3)
403.
Commonwealth, 272 S. W.
237;
N.
v.
Griffith
W.
(4) If val
unreasonable.
itself
search within
was
The
void
rendered
instance,
the search
id in
first
v.
States
seized. United
of the goods
the destruction
joint
No
(5)
North T. Attorney-General, Lovan, and A. Attorneys- Thomas B. Assistant Special General, respondent. in proper sufficient information
(1) 1921, p. Laws amended form. R. S. sec. App.) (2) 139. (Mo. 273 W. Stanley, S. 414; State was verified for the search The application attorney as. to its truth of the prosecuting the affidavit That as a show- was sufficient and fact.” “in substance "W. Cobb, State v. S. cause.” “reasonable ing of positive asser- 267 W. His S. 736; State Perry, ¡State v. legal responsibility. him to subject tion would *4 and the The application W. 116. 259 S. Locke, subject and are not face, upon sufficient were testimony. (3) by oral controversion collateral attack on di- expressly is intoxicating liquor of The destruction named as contrabrand rected statute. of court regardless rights, all stripped property and of 244, 25, p. sec. action. Laws MISSOURI,. OP SUPREME COURT State Gooeh. Prosecuting August 7, 1925, RAILEY, C. On Attorney filed in the cir- Missouri, of county which information, a verified cuit court of said caption follows: without and reads as verification, attorney prosecuting Collett, “Comes now John C. County Mis- within for the of Chariton and State of and upon souri and the court official informs oath day August, 1925, 11th of heretofore on'the ty Coun- and of Chariton and State of Gooch, Leslie then, unlaw- Todd and Dan did and there Gooch Gooch fully contrary provisions and to the statutes of the pos- provided State of Missouri in such cases made and liquor, keg intoxicating fifteen-gallon to-wit: sess kegs five-gallon one-gallon jugs of wine; wine; two one-half-gallon jugs wine; and three all of wine; containing* per than said wine more one-half of one cen- being potable capable volume and tum of alcohol beverag’e; against peace dignity a used as State.” September change On a 21, 1925, n regular against judge of said venue court was sus- Judge Harris, and Honorable David H. tained, Thirty-fourth special Circuit, Judicial called as a . try judge formal this case. The waived defendants arraignment pleas guilty. They and entered were jury September fol- 24, 1925, tried before lowing verdicts were returned: jury, guil-
“We, the find the Gooch defendant Leslie ty charged, punishment assess his at a fine of as $100.00. Foreman. Tebbe, “John jury, guilty find
“We, defendant Todd Gooch as charged, punishment fine assess his of $100.00. Foreman. Tebbe, “John jury, guilty
“We, the find the defendant Dan Gooch $100.00.j punishment charged, assess his at a fine of Tebbe,, Foreman.” “John September 1925, defendants filed motions for On judgment, in arrest of of which were a new trial both *5 314] Yol. Gooch. al-
overruled. last-mentioned date, Thereafter, on separate granted locution was each against defendants, of said judgments pro- sentence each, rendered conformity nounced ver- with the on each defendant in appeal granted dicts An said de- aforesaid. was each fendants to this court. exceptions
On December filed 14,1925, the bill was transcript in the circuit court filed aforesaid, February herein on 23, 1926.
The State’s evidence follows: is as Maupin, County, O. M. testified Sheriff of Chariton August in on substance, that he received search 11,1925, justice peace; he warrant from Mr. that Welker, a by going executed the' same in residence Gooch county, and there searched the barn and out- house, buildings; party he that found in two wine dif- his jugs, ferent half-gallon closets; that one closet there were several gallon-jugs, quart and a bottle about half sitting top full, in the that an- kitchen; safe they kegs other closet in another found room, three jug; brought Salisbury they one that they seized all the wine there; found that he home of was the three that herein; the defendants brothers, Gooch defendants returned to their home he and before party away; kegs took the wine were five- that two> the gallon kegs; that of them full wine and other about full half wine; that the east room the one-gallon jugs he home, closet; found two of wine in the they one-half-gallon jugs that three wine which, closet of the east room, was not locked.
On cross-examination Mrs. testified that he asked he key containing Gooch for to one of the closets, wine, gave key; locked, which him and she that he poured found; out some of the wine which he that he abqve obtained the facts and information under the search warrant; above occurred SUPREME MISSOURI, OP COURT Missouri; that Leslie Gooch is married it and was Ms gave key; wife who him the all live there to- Dr; gether; sample he Fel- *6 that left a with the wine lows. deputy
C. Cruse, sheriff, testified behalf in August State, that on 11, 1925, he went with sheriff aforesaid to the Gooch, residence of the Dan defendants, searching party; Todd Gooch and Leslie Gooch on a that helped five-gallon jug he found, and to one of wine find, they attic, what he called the cellar, but which would call gallons a smokehouse; that the above five packed wine were in cellar sawdust; that access gained by or room was front, a small door in means square; about two a half feet that one he fifteen- saw gallon five-gallon keg, kegs, partially one one filled, two-gallon jug half-gallon stone and three or four or one- gallon glass jugs; helped bring town; that he wine that defendants came home before the was moved. wine Maupin,
On cross-examination he said that Welker and Collett him; went Mrs. with that Gooch was they alone when arrived home; at baling hay Gooch that she premises; the defendants out were on the that goods they got had some faint smell of wine. Dr. Fellows testified for the substan William tially practicing physician That follows: is a he Salisbury; experience examining that had in he had testing liquors; studied alcoholic that he is chemist and chemistry University gradu at the he where College; ated in the Medical instructor that he University expe branches; some that he had had analysis liquids, liquors of va chemicals, rience kind, rious to determine their constituent elements August tests; that 11, 1925, knows to make the how him examination; over to that was turned some by him, were examined the sheriff had the wines which same; contents of that the wine made as to the *7 A Said to G inclusive were offered evi- exhibits in dence the State.
G. W. Welker testified in behalf of the sub- stantially justice peace as follows: That he was a Salisbury Township; August in that on 1925, he went 11, deputy sheriff the the and his home defendants township' County, Missouri; in in the above found at the home of fol- defendants wine as keg containing lows : One closet, in west about fif- kegs; five-gallon gallons; five-gallon jug; teen one one-gall two-gallon one-gal- jug; jug one on and one jug; one-gallon jug; one-half-gal- lon and another three jugs, lon and two with a amount bottles small of wine them; each of thirteen articles in all. were went warrant, This witness issued armed and with the sheriff make search. interposed
The rested and defendants de- evidence, murrer to the State’s which was overruled. ' They None the defendants testified in the case. eight put on the stand or nine who witnesses, testified that general reputation defendants had the law-abid- ing citizens. SUPREME 0E MISSOURI, COURT
State v. Gooch.
This all the evidence offered. again defendants interposed their demurrer at the conclusion evidence whole which case,
was overruled.
Such other matters as be may deemed important, will be considered in the opinion.
I. The information separate verdicts returned in this case are heretofore set out classify the action as a misdemeanor. The defendants, presented however, constitutional questions inception the case, which us to on requires pass the merits of Assignments. the controversy. The General Assembly (Laws p. 198) repealed Section 4080, Revised Statutes re-enacted, lieu same, follow- ' mg’: “The motion in arrest of abol- judgment hereby ished” (under Criminal “and all Procedure) hereafter the rights which heretofore could have been saved by defendants in a motion in not arrest, and which have been waived by failure to make timely may be objections, ’’ saved in the motion for a new trial.
The above act became effective July 9, hence questions presented for our consideration must be from determined new inspection of the motion trial.
II. Appellants assignment of errors do challenge sufficiency of the but information, *8 second in the motion paragraph a for trial charges new cour^ with error their overruling objec information. tions the introduction un of any evidence information, der the deem it proper upon to pass we sufficiency of the information. It out set is heretofore for itself. speaks charges It appellants, 11, 1925', did August unlawfully possess intoxicating liquor certain describing contained wines, alleged which it more than one-half per by centum alcohol volume. It further charged 65á 314] Yol. v. Gooch. State capable being potable used that said beverage. complies requirements a with the of Sec as It by Laws 1919, tion as amended 6588,Revised Statutes page form and sufficient as both and is 1921, 414, [State 135; v. 279 S. State v. Griffith, substance. W. Fenley, Pigg, 43; 275 S. W. l. c. S. W. Stanley, (Mo. App.) l. c. 140 State v. 273 W. and cases S. (Mo. App.) cited; Perkins, 240 S. 851.] Proposition I Under of their “Points Authori- appellants reply ties” point brief, assert that: “No insufficiency made as to form of the is ’’ information. unnecessary to therefore deem it consider this We branch further. case by appellants, It claimed that the III. is Search application for search warrant in this case
Warrant, insufficient. by 1919, Revised Statutes as amended Section by repealed the Laws of 1923 1921, was Laws of supra seq.). (Sec. p. et Section 25, Laws prosecuting provides attorney of “The . . . that: empowered county, hereby file in the any . . is . criminal correction, court of court, criminal circuit court, having jurisdiction in the any criminal court other or jus judge county, vacation, or thereof or before application peace, warrant, search tice of the petition setting forth sub be shall which upon based, de stantially the same is which the facts things thing place scribing or to be searched petition may nearly be shall which be, to he seized as filing it If same. of the officer the oath verified in which said appear of the court to the satisfaction shall jus judge vacation, or petition thereof filed, petition filed, be peace shall whom tice of the before petition fromor in said facts set forth either from the probable cause there is thereon, evidence heard pos unlawfully intoxicating liquor” is believe that duty of parties be the “it shall named, sessed *9 SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, State v. Gooch.
such court or such officerbefore pe- which or whom said tition was to filed, issue or cause be issued a search (Italics ours.) thereon,” . . .
The defendants introduced in Ex- evidence, as their hibit One, Number filed the Prosecut- ing Attorney County of Chariton for a search warrant, caption which, without and verification, reads as follows: Prosecuting Attorney “John C. Collett, within and County for the up- Chariton in the State of Missouri, respectfully oath states and shows that in the here- buildings inafter described and structures, at and and upon premises places the hereinafter described and county said State, to-wit: quarter
“The north half of the southeast quarter quarter' southwest of the northeast of Section 31, Township Range dwelling 16, and house and outbuild- ings possession of the GroochBrothers and all in Chari- intoxicating being ton fully unlaw- kept;
sold, manufactured, stored and that thereat kept, being and therein is also still, used and doubler, fermenting worm, tubs, worm mash tub, tubs, vessels, fix- equipments, parts tures and thereof used and fit for intoxicating liquor. use the unlawful manufacture of petitioner prays “Your therefor search war- provided rant be law, issued, to the delivered county authorizing any sheriff of said constable necessary officer with the to enter assistance the build- premises ing, places structures, herein above de- daytime nighttime, by either in the scribed, or if force necessary diligently same; search the that he seize intoxicating liquor all found therein or thereat; and all products materials and used or fit for use liquor; intoxicating the he manufacture of unlawful mash, seize all worm stills, worms, tubs, doublers, equip- fermenting mash tubs, tubs, vessels, fixtures and ments for use in thereat, fond therein or and fit production intoxicating liq- unlawful manufacture or disposed according be uor, same dealt with person persons any said officer arrest law; that Yol. 314] APRIL TERM, 1926.
State v. Gooch. using any or in of or control of in- such *10 liquor, toxicating things or articles to be dealt with ac- cording that law, to and he make due return of the exe- by provided. cution writ of said as law “John C. Collett,
‘‘ ’’ Prosecuting Attorney. then The defendants in introduced evidence as Number Exhibit Two, the search warrant, which, without caption, as reads follows: duly
“Whereas John C. the Collett, elected, commis- acting Attorney Prosecuting sioned and of Chariton day August, in the State of the of Missouri, undersigned, 1925, filed before theme, a Justice of the Township Salisbury, Peace within the and for of m said county, duly petition certified and in writ- ing, provided by stating law, as in therein the that build- ings upon premises place structures, and and and given, herein below to-wit: quarter
“The north half southeast and quarter quarter southwest of northeast of Section Township Range dwelling 16, and build- house and ings occupied by intoxicating thereon the Gooch Brothers liquor being unlawfully now manufactured sold, and kept; being and that thereat is also and therein used kept a still, worm, tub, tub, worm mash fer- doubler, menting equipments parts tubs, vessels, and fixtures and thereof, used and fit for use unlawful manufacture in the liquor intoxicating of and in from the set that facts forth “be it known, petition thereby showing and there-
said verified upon probable made it is me cause found that there is to believe in re- that the laws of State of Missouri liquor, prohibition intoxicating to as set lation provided, forth in made and in the statutes cases such buildings, are and and violated premises structures at upon place petition, in said and described charged. and manner in the therein hereby are in the name commanded, “You proper necessary assist- State of with 314 Mo.—42. OF SUPREME MISSOURI. COURT v. Gooch. buildings, forthwith enter said
anee, to structures and place, daytime premises nighttime, or necessary, diligent force if intoxicating make search for equipment and for utensils liq- intoxicating or fit the manufacture of used use you any found, if seize take uor, and such be that possession disposed be dealt with and same, according you person any law; that further arrest or any persons using, control or or liquor, things, intoxicating, such articles such according persons you may law; be dealt proper your due and return me make execution provided. this law August, my day under “Given hand Salisbury Township, my county at the office *11 state aforesaid. Welker,
“G. “Justice of Peace.” likewise in evidence the The defendants introduced county, Ex- said marked as their return of sheriff of caption, reads follows: which, hibit without as 3? by making certify writ “I that I served the within diligent premises within search described keg; kegs; fifteen-gallon five-gallon one one one-gallon one-gallon jug; two-gallon jug; one one stone jug; one-gallon glass gallon jug; stone one three one-half jugs; containing glass intoxi- one two bottles bottle and liquor; cating con- one bottle two bottles liquor. taining only quantity Also found a small process five-gallon jug fermentation. brew in arresting within writ Leslie further executed the I premises, Dan on said Todd Gooch and Gooch Gooch, represented owners there- be the and who themselves to brought them G. W. Welker. before Matjpin, “O. M. County Mo.”
“Sheriff appellants’ mo- heard evidence on The trial court suppress and held that same, evidence, tion to overruled Yol. 314]
State v. petition sufficiently complied for a search warrant
with that the the law and search warrant was valid. every
Practically case comes here char of this relating acter contains exhaustive review law presents mentioned, issues above action exception appellants counsel for have rule, no to. the many quotations filed elaborate from briefs, and have, the authorities said to sustain their contention. We questions in on several occasions, reviewed above supplemented filed, oases extensive briefs were where necessary arguments, it able we not deem to re but do definitely been consider which have settled these issues accordingly applica hold that the this Division. We prosecuting attorney Mis tion of the of Chariton sufficiently com souri, aforesaid, for the search warrant plied valid. We likewise with law hold acted, is valid warrant, search under the sheriff which complied requirements [State of the law. with v. cited; v. W. 395 and Cock Halbrook, 279 S. cases 736; State rum, Cobb, 278 S. W. S. W. Perry, 831.] c. l. S. W. assignment accordingly over- above error is
ruled. overruling, charged
IV. error in The court is appellants’ suppress for the al the evidence, motion leged application for a search reason that the , , , Application. , hearsay, made on etc. warrant was *12 permit refusing in error no court committed purpose of appellants the for stated offer evidence application'for a controverting out the facts set 279; l. c. Halbrook, [State S. W. v. search warrant. 738-9.] l. c. 273 S. W. Cobb,
State v. Judge supra, clear in a Halbrook, In Higbeei, v. relating sub- to this of law forceful statement prose- unsupported ject, of the information said: “If the probable the arrest cause for cuting attorney is deemed felony, by persons him of accused of incarceration charged public with official, unreasonable, this if it seems SUPREME OF MISSOURI. COURT protection society, of the for the the enforcement law acting under official oath while his and in the should, petition discretion, exercise file a for a warrant of his goods or for evidence to search for stolen of the unlaw- transportation possession, manufacture, ful of intoxi- process cating liquors, be that should refused unless and support produce proofs further until he of such should petition. opinion upon principle that, are We ’ authority, appellants merit; contentions are without compliance with that the search warrant was issued supra, 25, Section statute; Constitution that harmony our clause of is in with the search-and-seizure properly evi- that the court excluded Constitution; and prosecuting attorney personal no dence had that petition knowledge stated of the truth of facts mo- and that the warrant; search the issuance suppress quash the evi- the search and to tion properly overruled.” under the warrant dence found likewise The above contention is overruled. by appellants, the search It is V. asserted destruction void sheriff rendered part Section 25 wine the sheriff. seized page fol 24'4,
Act of Laws controversy, lowing, m declared wine Destruction ofcontraband. any right and without contraband, to be required appellants. It existing property in behalf of destroy seizing The consti it. same after the officer challenged in supra, tutionality of Section the motion for any tendered in issue such nor is case, accordingly over assignment error is trial. This new 399.] Halbrook, 279 S. [State ruled. possession joint finally no claimed that It is VI. defendants, and was shown Gooch, Leslie lived the defendants jointpossession. against evidence no there is them. *13 661
Yol. 314] evidence adduced at think there sufficient We tending that all of the defend- trial to show three jointly in the taken the sher- interested were wine ants In in the case. the defendants iff. Neither of testified suppress joint the court below their motion filed “ during they times all the dates and evidence, said: occupied possession they their of and were aforesaid together dwelling constituting house, with their home, outbuildings north on the therewith, located connection quarter quarter southwest half of the southeast Township quarter Section northeast County, said Range . . . Missouri. 16, Chariton Maupin, C. M. Sheriff unlawfully deputies take in assistants, did
his said portion described possession the wine their together arti- other certain aforesaid, information ours.) (Italics belonging these cles defendants.” same, also the conclusion motion, above near The only purpose following: for the “That contains de- rights thereunder invoking constitutional date.” said wine admit fendants (Italics ours.) foregoing matters were in evidence before the jury, court and the same admissions are now before immaterial this court. whether It defendants made foregoing specially admissions to raise their con questions, whether stitutional made were for a purpose. jurisdiction The court different had persons cause likewise said defendants. These admissions were under oath each de foregoing, In fendant. view of the we hold that the above assignment of error merit, is without and is overruled. Tipton, [State l. c. Pate v. 513; Dumbauld, Mo. 974.] Ray, Mo. l. c. 225 S. l. c. State v. reply appellants, Propo under
VII. The brief of complain appellants sition “The states: do SUPREME OP COURT MISSOURI. State v. Kinnamon. jury court enough, did not instruct the but
instruction. point that it instructed them on a on which there was evidence, no to-wit, Todd and carefully Dan.” have We examined the instructions given by they correctly court, and hold stated the law of the case. necessary pursue
VIII. We do deem it inquiry posses further. The were defendants found in intosicating’ liquors in violation of law, sion Conclusion. punishment only received jury hands a fine of each. We find no $100 legally error the record which can defendants com plain. judgment accordingly Hig below is affirmed. sitting. bee, notG., opinion foregoing
PER CURIAM:—The of Railey, adopted opinion isC., All of the court. judges concur. Appellant.
THE v. EMMET STATE KINNAMON, Two, May 28, Division 1926. Filed, APPEAL: Motion for New Trial: in Vacation: Corrected. Transcript: Having Reinstatement. declined the bill of to consider exceptions appeared' because it from the record that the motion for vacation, appearing a new trial filed no error was. proper, judgment was, reasons, affirmed, record these and it being subsequently transcript shown a corrected the motion seasonably days verdict, during filed within four after a recess court, court, upon- motion, jus- its own in furtherance grant rehearing. tice, will young Failure of
2. MURDER: Evidence. that a man was Evidence prompted, goaded 'incited even defendant to enter down, robbery him as the restaurant of deceased and shoot jury may guilty motive, find defendant fact from which the murder, although actually present when homi- he was not robbery cide and were committed. notes per twelve cent of al the bottle taken from contained. twenty-three per B cent Exhibit contained that cohol; sample from was a taken Exhibit C alcohol; that Yol. 314] State v. Gooch. largest keg per alcohol; thirteen contained cent of kegs, that Exhibit from D, taken the smaller con of- per tained nine cent of alcohol; that Exhibit Ewas taken per two-gallon jug, eight from a brown and contained per cent alcohol; Exhibit F1 nineteen that contained twenty-three cent of per alcohol; Exhibit contained G samples cent alcohol; that all of these of wine intoxicating liquor; which he were that he tasted tested samples thought you each them; of these could drink liquor brought poured that the his office out after samples made; tests were over were turned company him Mr. sheriff, Mr. Cruse, Collett and one or two others. C. recalled, W. Cruse was and identified the wine turned over to Dr. as the same wine Fellows at the home. Gooch