State v. Green

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Green

71 S.E. 847, 89 S.C. 132, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 261

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 1, 1911

Docket7933

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 847 (State v. Green) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Green, 71 S.E. 847, 89 S.C. 132, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 261 (S.C. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion- of the Court was delivered; by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

The appellant was convicted on an indictment charging that he “did unlawfully accept, receive, store and keep in possession” alcoholic liquors contrary to the statute. He admitted having liquor in his possession, but claimed that he had it only for his- own personal use. He requested the Court to charge the jury that the term “storing and keeping in possession” used in the statute involves the idea of continuity or habit. The Court charged that that was correct under the old dispensary law, when the State engaged in the sale of liquors, and that it would be correct as applied to the law in any county in the State in which there is now a dispensary, but that, in a county which has no dispensary (such as Sumter, where the indictment is laid), the mere having liquor in possession, no matter for what purpose, nor how small a quantity it may be, is illegal.

1 We think his Honor erred in holding that the words “store and keep in possession” have a different meaning and construction in counties where the sale of liquor is. prohibited from that which they have in counties where liquors are lawfully sold through dispensaries. We find no warrant in reason- or authority for such variable construction of a statute. In Easley v. Pegg, 63 S. C. 102, 41 S. E. 18, it was held that “the offense of storing and keeping in possession contraband liquors involves the idea of continuity or habit.” The same construction and meaning must be given the same wohds, used in the act of 1909, as were given them in the act of 1897.

2 The Court also erred in charging that it was unlawful for one to have liquor in his possession in a prohibition county, no matter what quantity or for what purpose. State v. Rookard, 87 S. C. 442.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion- of the Court was delivered; by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

The appellant was convicted on an indictment charging that he “did unlawfully accept, receive, store and keep in possession” alcoholic liquors contrary to the statute. He admitted having liquor in his possession, but claimed that he had it only for his- own personal use. He requested the Court to charge the jury that the term “storing and keeping in possession” used in the statute involves the idea of continuity or habit. The Court charged that that was correct under the old dispensary law, when the State engaged in the sale of liquors, and that it would be correct as applied to the law in any county in the State in which there is now a dispensary, but that, in a county which has no dispensary (such as Sumter, where the indictment is laid), the mere having liquor in possession, no matter for what purpose, nor how small a quantity it may be, is illegal.

1 We think his Honor erred in holding that the words “store and keep in possession” have a different meaning and construction in counties where the sale of liquor is. prohibited from that which they have in counties where liquors are lawfully sold through dispensaries. We find no warrant in reason- or authority for such variable construction of a statute. In Easley v. Pegg, 63 S. C. 102, 41 S. E. 18, it was held that “the offense of storing and keeping in possession contraband liquors involves the idea of continuity or habit.” The same construction and meaning must be given the same wohds, used in the act of 1909, as were given them in the act of 1897.

2 The Court also erred in charging that it was unlawful for one to have liquor in his possession in a prohibition county, no matter what quantity or for what purpose. State v. Rookard, 87 S. C. 442.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 847, 89 S.C. 132, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-green-sc-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack