
    In re ONE FORD AUTOMOBILE. BUSSEY v. STATE.
    No. 9305
    Opinion Filed Sept. 24, 1918.
    (175 Pac. 226.)
    Intoxicating- liquors — Transporting Liquor —Seizure of Automobile — “Appurtenance.”
    An automobile seized January 28,' 1917, in the unlawful conveyance of intoxicating liquors, in the presence of an officer having power to serve criminal process, was not subject to seizure by such official and forfeiture to the state, under the provision of section 3617, Rev. Laws 1910, and is not an “appurtenance” within the meaning of that section. Following One Cadillac Automobile v. State, .68 Okla. 116.. 172 Pae. 62.
    (Syllabus by Galbraith, O.)
    Error from County Court, Rogers County; Edward Jordon, Judge.
    In the matter of the seizure of one Ford automobile by the State, Frank .Bussey in-terpleaded. Judgment for the State, and the interpleader brings error.
    Reversed.
    G^ldesberry & Boone, for plaintiff in error.
    Mack R. Shanks, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

GALBRAITH, C.

This is an pn-rwi from the indament of forfeiture rendered in the trial court against one Ford automobile seized on January 28, 1917, charged with being used as a conveyance for tb» f’”'n snorts tí on of whiskv from one point in the state to another, on the day of goi-rnre.

The case is controlled by. the decision of this court in case No. 9008, One Cadillac Automobile v. State, reported in 68 Okla. 116, 172 Pac. 62, and the subsequent cases that decision to the effect that the judgment of confiscation was not authorized by the law as it existed at that time of the seizure. The judgment appealed from must therefore be reversed.

It is ordered that the judgment appealed from be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to the trial court to vacate the judgment of forfeiture and return the Ford to its owner.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  