ONE BUICK AUTO. v. STATE

ONE BUICK AUTO. v. STATE
1919 OK 123
182 P. 229
72 Okla. 255
Case Number: 10425
Decided: 04/15/1919
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

ONE BUICK AUTOMOBILE, MODEL D. 44 (BROWN. Intervener)
v.
STATE

Syllabus

¶0 Transportation of Liquors--Forfeiture of Automobile.
Affirmed on authority of One Cadillac Automobile Tag No. 6870, No. 18, Engine No. 55P89, v. State of Oklahoma, No. 10424, 75 Okla. 139, 182 P. 227.

Error from District Court, Logan County; John P. Hickam, Judge.

Proceeding by the State for the forfeiture of an automobile as having been used in the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, in which Ofa Brown appeared specially and filed a plea to the jurisdiction. Judgment for the State, and the intervener brings error. Affirmed.

Turner & McAdams, for plaintiff in error
Fred W. Green, Co. Atty., and R. C. Bassett, for defendant in error.

HARDY, C. J.

¶1 On September 23, 1918, the sheriff of Logan county, by his deputy, filed his verified return in the district court of said county, reciting that he had seized the Buick automobile roadster, and arrested one Ofa Brown, who was transporting intoxicating liquor in said automobile in and through said county, and praying that the matter be set down for hearing at an early date to determine whether said automobile was being unlawfully used in the conveyance of intoxicating liquor within said county and state and whether said intoxicating liquor should be confiscated and destroyed as required by law and the automobile forfeited to the state. A date was set for the hearing, and the said Of a Brown filed a special appearance and pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court, in which, among other things, he urged that chapter 188, Session Laws 1917, was unconstitutional and void and repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the state of Oklaho- ma, in that it specifically denies the right of a trial by a jury of the issue as to whether the property seized was being used for unlawful purposes in violation of article 2, § 19, and of article 2, § 20, of the Consti- tution. Other objections were urged in the plea, but the only question urged in the brief and oral argument is that just stated.