{ "id": 1555046, "name": "Scoggin v. City of Morrilton", "name_abbreviation": "Scoggin v. City of Morrilton", "decision_date": "1916-06-26", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "585", "last_page": "587", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "124 Ark. 585" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "94 Ark. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1545411 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/94/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ark. 4", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1351987 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/103/0004-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ark. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1495635 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/79/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Ark. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "94 Ark. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "47 Ark. 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "568" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "56 S. E. 292", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "65 Ark. 279", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "20 Ark. 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "54 la. 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2318286 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/54/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Pick. (Mass.), 13", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pick.", "case_ids": [ 2025464 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/35/0013-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 Mo. 619", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 2230979 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo/207/0619-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 S. W. 1125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "118 Ark. 352", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "105 Ga. 676", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 391524 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/105/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 S. E. 585", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 Mass. (8 Met.) 525", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 427, "char_count": 5785, "ocr_confidence": 0.47, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.4201052202709576e-07, "percentile": 0.8009092421990626 }, "sha256": "c04ca0a75a1d45d8d624840f2451c91a3bdb1e6a955be80c378ea5aae2e8667b", "simhash": "1:f4688d0e2b6963cf", "word_count": 1029 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:49.378710+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Scoggin v. City of Morrilton." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.\nUpon an affidavit charging him with the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in the city of Morrilton on or about November 15, 1915, appellant was convicted and he \u00a1appeals to this court.\nThe only question for our consideration is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.\nGiving the evidence its strongest probative force in favor of the appellee, it -shows that appellant left at the express office in the city of Morrilton, Arkansas, a key to an old house that opened into a back alley, and instructed a delivery -man of the express company to deliver packages for appellant at this old house. The old house was a .place where Carl Meyer kept eggs and hides. It was very dark of nights in the alley on- which 'this old house was located. It was showp that between the 7th of October and the 29th -of December, appellant had bought money orders payable to Sandefur, Julian & \u00a1Co. and Lasker Bros., liquor dealers of Little Rock, amounting to $171.75. It was proved that a larg\u2019e quantity of empty cartons was found in the old house. The delivery man took two packages in one day to this house. Each package contained pint bottles of whiskey. The \u00a1second package was captured by the city marshal and if contained twenty-four pints of whiskey. The -second package was not shipped in appellant\u2019s name, but-in the name of Me-Burke. McBurke testified that the whiskey in the second package be-long*ed to him and he introduced an express bill which contained his name. The express bill, however, did not show the destination of the package. MeBurke, who testified that the whiskey belonged to him, did not make (affidavit to that effect before the mayor, and permitted the whiskey to be 'destroyed without claiming it. He testified that was the only express bill or receipt that he had ever seen although he had ordered whiskey a number of times.\nIt devolved on the State to prove appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Every presumption is in favor of innocence, and the proof necessary to establish guilt can not be supplied by mere inference from facts that do not necessarily imply guilt. The evidence is not legally sufficient to prove that appellant made a sale of liquor to any one. \u201cA sale is a contract for the transfer of property from one person to another for a valuable consideration.\u201d 7 Words & Phrases, \u201cSale,\u201d p. 6291-92. \u201cTo constitute a sale of liquor in violation of the law there must be the assent of two parties. There must be a vendor and vendee. But no words need be proved to have been spoken. A sale may be inferred from the acts of the parties, and no disguise which the parties may attempt to throw over the transaction, with a view of evading the-law, can avail them if in fact such sale is found to have taken place.\u201d Commonwealth v. Thayer, 49 Mass. (8 Met.) 525-26. See also Cunningham v. State, 31 S. E. 585-86, 105 Ga. 676.\nA sale may be proved by circumstances as well as by affirmative evidence. But where' it is sought to prove a sale by circumstances, they must warrant the inference that there was a seller and a purchaser, a thing to be sold and compensation in some form from the purchaser to the seller for the article sold. The most that can be said of the evidence here is that it was sufficient to arouse a strong suspicion that appellant was making illegal sales of liquor, but suspicion is not proof and can not take its place. The evidence falls short of that substantial proof necessary to convict.\nThe judgment is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. A. Eades, for appellant. .", "Edward Gordon, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Scoggin v. City of Morrilton.\nOpinion delivered June 26, 1916.\n1. Sales \u2014 definition.\u2014A sale is a contract for the transfer of property from one person to another for a valuable consideration.\n2. Sales \u2014 proof of. \u2014 A sale may be proved by circumstances as well as by affirmative evidence; but the circumstances must warrant the inference that there was a seller and a purchaser, a thing to be sold, and compensation in some form passing from the purchaser to the seller.\n3. Liquor \u2014 illegal sale \u2014 insufficient proof. \u2014 Under an indictment charging the illegal sale of liquor, the evidence held insufficient to show that any sale had been made by the defendant.\nAppeal from Conway Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge;\nreversed.\nJ. A. Eades, for appellant. .\n1. There is not one word of testimony to sustain the verdict. Appellant was charged with selling \u2014 not buying \u2014 whiskey, and there is no testimony that he sold any. This court never adopted the scintilla rule; there must be a preponderance. 118 Ark. 352. There was no \u2018\u00ab\u2018sale.\u201d 23 Cyc. 284. The verdict should have been set aside. 106 S. W. 1125; lb. 23; 207 Mo. 619.\n2. The jury disregarded the court\u2019s instructions. 18 Pick. (Mass.), 13; 54 la. 628. The verdict is wholly unwarranted by the evidence. 20 Ark. 454 ; 21 Id. 302; 7 Id. 435; 29 Cyc. 832; 65 Ark. 279; 56 S. E. 292. When clearly against the weight of the evidence, the verdict should be set aside. 47 Ark. 567; 94 Id. 568. Or where the evidence is not legally sufficient to sustain it. 94 Ark. 569; 98 Id. 336; 20 Id. 225.\n3.. Defendant was not tried under \u201cthe blind tiger\u201d act. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 5140, but under section 5093, as amended. Acts 1911, \u00a7 100, p. 64; 110 Ark. 47.\nEdward Gordon, for appellee.\n1. No objections were made, nor exceptions saved, to the instructions or \u2019evidence. ' 79 Ark. 470. The only-question is, therefore, does the evidence support the verdict? The verdict is conclusive. 103 Ark. 4; 95 Id. 321; 104 Id. 162; 95 Id. 172; 100 Id. 330; 103 Id. 260; 92 Id. 120.\n2. The evidence shows that appellant was either a \u201cbootlegger\u201d or a \u201csilo.\u201d 94 Ark. 94. In less than three months appellant purchased $171.75 worth of booze, and \u00a1started an egg and hide house in a dark alley. \u201cGuilty.\u201d" }, "file_name": "0585-01", "first_page_order": 609, "last_page_order": 611 }