
    ONE BUICK AUTOMOBILE, MODEL D. 44 (BROWN, Intervener) v. STATE.
    No. 10425
    Opinion Filed April 15, 1919.
    (182 Pac. 229.)
    (Syllabus.)
    Transportation of Liquors — ¡Forfeiture of Automobile.
    Affirmed on authority of One Cadillac Automobile Tag No. 0870, No. 18, Engine No. 55P89, v. State of Oklahoma, No. 10424, 75 Okla. 139, 182 Pac. 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. Bas-sett, for defendant in error.
   HARDY, C. J.

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 Ofa Brown filed a special appearance and pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court, in which, among other things, he urged that chapter 1S8, Session Laws 1917, was unconstitutional and void and repugnant to the Constitution oí che United States and the state of Oklahoma, 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 Constitution. Other objections were urged in the plea, but the only question urged in the brief and oral argument is that just stated.

The questions urged in this case are identical with those presented in No. 10424, One Cadillac Automobile v. State of Oklahoma, 75 Okla. 134, 182 Pac. 227, this day decided, and upon the authority of that case the judgment is alfirmed.  