Rivard v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Scott Wood, Judge; It is no violation of law for a person to bring liquor into this State for his own use. The court erred in its instructions to the jury. The verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence. There w,as no evidence that defendant transported, shipped or delivered any liqnor to any one, or that he sold or offered to sell any liqnor. No violation of the act was proven.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Scott Wood, Judge; It is no violation of law for a person to bring liquor into this State for his own use. The court erred in its instructions to the jury. The verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence. There w,as no evidence that defendant transported, shipped or delivered any liqnor to any one, or that he sold or offered to sell any liqnor. No violation of the act was proven. The act prohibits the importation of liquor by any person in any manner whatsoever or for any purpose except the two purposes named in see. 17. 69 So. 652; 219 IT. S. 104; 169…
1Opinion
HART, J.,
(on rehearing). For the sake of convenience, and in order to abbreviate the discussion of the argument made by the Attorney General in'his brief on the motion for a rehearing, we will first set out the section of the act under consideration in a condensed form, retaining, however, all its essential features.
Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for any railroad company, etc., or any other person, .to ship or to transport into or to deliver in this State in any manner or by any means whatsoever, any alcoholic liquors from any other State, etc., to any person, firm or corporation within…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bird v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1914
- People v. BolaMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Wells Fargo & Co. Express v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917