Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926

State v. Bruce

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided December 9, 1926 · Watts, Messrs, Cothran, Bufasb, Stabufr, Ramagb

136 S.E. 29; 138 S.C. 96; 1926 S.C. LEXIS 222 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. T.P. Dickson and H.C. Miller , for appellant cite: Statute prohibiting transportation of liquor: Crim. Code 1922 Sec. 860. Mr. L.W. Harris, Solicitor , for respondent cites One found in possession of liquor presumed to have transported it there: 60 S.E., 234 . Burden on person found in possession of liquor to show lawful acquisition: 101 S.E., 663 . Transportation entirely on premises of owner unlawful: 244 S.W., 799. Distance of transportation immaterial: 237 P., 627 ; 237 P., 486; 43 Sup. Ct. Rep., 504 . Transportation": 115 S.E., 512; 114 S.E., 590; 109 S.E., 590; 101 S.E., 663 ; 61 S.E., 891; 43 Sup. Ct. Rep., 504 ; 114 U.S. 196 ; 90 Pa., 307 . Intent immaterial in crime of transporting liquor: 246 S.W. 795; 245 S.W. 134; 205 S.W. 423; 175 N.W., 685. Errors not objected to on circuit will not be heard on appeal: 113 S.E., 119 . Harmless error no ground for reversal: 132 S.E., 45 ; 128 S.E., 882. Objection to improper question by Solicitor sustained no ground for reversal: 130 S.E., 337 ; 118 S.E., 311. Question by Solicitor as to drinking habit of defendant not improper: 126 S.E., 757 ; 118 S.E., 807; 118 S.E., 783 .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts..

“The appellant, herein called' defendant, was tried and convicted at the May, 1926, term of Court of General Sessions at Anderson of an alleged violation of the State prohibition law, and sentenced to three months at hard labor upon the public works of Anderson County or for a like period in the State penitentiary. The appeal from this judgment is based upon three exceptions. The exceptions impute error in the Court below in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty for the defendant on the second count in the indictment, charging him with transporting liquor, when there was no testimony to show that he did transport liquor, as charged in the indictment and as fixed by statute. It is respectfully contended that the Court was in error in refus *98 ing to charge defendant’s request as follows: ‘That the mere removing of alcoholic liquor from one place to another on one’s own premises is not transporting liquor, as the law contemplates. There must be a delivery or a contemplated delivery in order to constitute the offense of transporting.’ ”

These exceptions must be overruled, as there was a conflict of evidence between state witnesses and defendant as to the transportation of the liquor. The state witnesses testified that the defendant did carry between the church and schoolhouse. The defendant claimed he never left his premises.

That was a question of fact properly left by his Honor for the jury to determine, and the jury decided against the defendant. We see no- error on the part of his Honor, as complained of by the exceptions.

Exception 3 is overruled because on objection of defendant’s counsel the objection was sustained by his Honor.

All exceptions are overruled and judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Cothran, BufasB, and Stabufr and Mr. Acting Associate Justice Ramagb concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.