Collins v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Hon, Judge; 1. There was no proof of any fact at issue in this cause. Statements by defendant that she had a government license are not evidence at all. The law requires that such license be “found” on the premises. 2. Bare possession of liquor is not prima facie evidence ol guilt. 85 Ark. 102. 1. The admissions of a defendant are always admissible against him.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Hon, Judge; 1. There was no proof of any fact at issue in this cause. Statements by defendant that she had a government license are not evidence at all. The law requires that such license be “found” on the premises. 2. Bare possession of liquor is not prima facie evidence ol guilt. 85 Ark. 102. 1. The admissions of a defendant are always admissible against him. It was competent to prove possession of a government license. Kirby’s Digest, § 5144. 2. The court properly charged the jury. A revenue license is prima facie evidence…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulroch, C. J.
Appellant’s premises in the city of Tort Smith were, in September, 1909, raided under a search warrant, issued under the “blind tiger” statute, and about two dozen bottles of beer were found in the house. The character of the premises is not disclosed in the record, further than by the statement of one of the witnesses that the beer was found in the ice box in the dining room.
In the trial of appellant in the circuit court for violation of the “blind tiger” statute, it was proved by the testimony of the raiding officers that' the beer was found by them as indicated above, and that appellant…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Appling v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Peyton v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
3Cited by1 opinion
- Parker v. MarshSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952