Moulder v State

Moulder v State
1913 OK CR 290
138 P. 815
10 Okl.Cr. 252
Case Number: No. A-1829
Decided: 11/08/1913
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS Illegal Possession Evidence Revenue-License.

2. SAME.

Appeal from County Court, Pawnee County; Fred S. Liscum, Judge.

A.A. Moulder was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law and appeals. Affirmed.

Welza G. Fairchild, for plaintiff in error.

Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson and C.J. Davenport, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

DOYLE, J. This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction had under an information which charged that the defendant did have possession of intoxicating liquors, with the intention of violating provisions of the prohibition law. On July 22, 1912, in accordance with the verdict of the jury the defendant was sentenced to be confined in the county jail for thirty days and pay a fine of $400. The evidence shows that the defendant received a shipment of seven barrels of beer and a barrel of whisky from the station agent at Keystone; that in order to receive such shipment he made the following affidavit:

"Keystone, Okla., May 6, 1912. To all concerned: In order to obtain a shipment of seven barrels of beer and one barrel of whisky by freight from the agent at Keystone, Okla., I hereby make affidavit and take oath that I am a resident of Keystone, and do not live in that part of the state formerly the old Indian Territory."

Page 253

and that he also received several shipments of liquor by express.

It is further shown that the defendant paid a month's rent to one G.W. Hickman. It is further shown by a witness who had lived at Keystone for about twenty years that he never knew defendant being there until Mr. Hickman said that defendant had a room at his house. The state also introduced in evidence a certified copy of the record of the collector of internal revenue showing the payment of the special tax required of retail liquor dealers. It shows that the tax was paid by "Order of Owls. A.A. Moulder, Place, Sapulpa, Okla." The defendant offered no evidence.

Numerous errors are assigned, but in our judgment the only material question not substantially covered by former decisions of this court, is the question arising on the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.