
    STATE v. V. H. BLAUNTIA.
    (Filed 8 December, 1915.)
    1. Intoxicating' Liquor — Possession of Agent — Prima Pacie Case.
    The possession of the agent, for the one accused of violating our prohibition law, of more than one gallon of intoxicating liquor is sufficient to make out a prima facie case of guilt, under the provisions of section 2, chapter 44, Public Laws 1913, carrying the issue to the jury.
    2. Same — Barrels Marked Potatoes — Railroad’s Possession — Guilt—Circumstantial Evidence.
    It is sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of guilt of one accused of violating the prohibition law in having in his possession more than one gallon of intoxicating liquor, when it tends to show that the delivering railroad had in its possession a shipment of 'barrels marked potatoes addressed to the accused as consignee, but which contained several gallons of liquor covered at top and bottom with potatoes; that the next day the officers of the law found at the defendant’s residence similar empty barrels, but with the marks thereon obliterated and empty bottles similar to those in the barrels they had seized; and with testimony of draymen that they had obtained from the railroad similar barrels upon a bill of lading given them by the defendant and delivered at his home, and that the defendant had signed the warehouse receipts for two barrels of potatoes.
    B. Same — Prisoner Hot Identified.
    There being evidence in this case that the defendant, accused of violating the prohibition law, had been receiving by freight barrels marked potatoes, but containing more than one gallon of intoxicating liquor, testimony of a drayman that he had been told by a man, whom he could not identify, to haul similar barrels to the ones seized to a certain address, being that of the accused, with.other corroborative evidence, is held relevant in establishing a prima facie ease of defendant’s guilt in having more than one gallon of liquor on hand, both on the principal issue of guilt and on the question whether the liquor seized in the railroad’s possession, and purporting to be consigned to the defendant, was held by the railroad as defendant’s agent and with his consent and procurement.
    Appeal by defendant from Lyon, J., at June Term, 1915, of Guileoed.
    Indictment for violation of section 2 of the Search and Seizure Law and for unlawfully having spirituous liquor in possession for purposes of sale, tried on appeal from municipal court. Defendant was convicted and, from judgment on the verdict, appealed to the Supreme Court.
    
      Attorney-General Bichett and Assistant Attorney-General Calvert for the State.
    
    
      John A. Barringer for defendant.
    
   Hoke, J.

Chapter 44, Public Laws 1913, section 2, makes it unlawful for any person, etc., other than druggists and medical depositories, duly licensed thereto, “to have in possession for purposes of sale any spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors,” and, among other things, makes the having- in one’s possession more than one gallon of liquor at one time, whether in one or more places, prima facie evidence of a violation of the section.

The statute has been directly upheld as a valid enactment, S. v. R. R., 149 N. C., 508; S. v. Wilkerson, 164 N. C., 431; and it has been also held that where it is established that the amount of spirituous liquors specified is in the control and jmssession of defendant’s agent, such possession shall be deemed sufficient to make out a prima facie case of guilt within the meaning of the law. It is chiefly urged for error by defendant that there is in this case no valid or sufficient evidence that he had possession of one or more gallons of spirituous liquors at one and the same time so as to make out a prima facie case, and, this being true, the forbidden offense has not been established; but we do not so interpret the record. On the trial there were facts in evidence tending to show that defendant worked in a barber shop in Greensboro, and that on or about 18 May officers of the police seized three barrels, appearing to be barrels of potatoes, at the railroad station, purporting to be consigned to V. H. Blauntia, marked “Michigan Seed Potatoes”; another mark on the barrel was “From Walenstein Brewery Company, Richmond, Ya.”; that, on examination, it was found that in the barrel there were a few potatoes at the bottom and top and between these were forty pints of whiskey in bottles; that on the 19th of May the officers went to the home of defendant, 121 Thomas Street, 'and found there some empty barrels similar to those found at the station except that the marks on the barrels had been erased or obliterated, and they also found there a lot of empty bottles similar to the kind found full in the barrels that were seized. It was further shown that, just prior to this seizure, two other barrels of potatoes had been receipted for by Cyrus Caldwell, a drayman. Charles Johnston, a drayman, testified that he hauled a barrel of potatoes for defendant, similar in kind and appearance to those seized and now in the possession of the police, and, by his direction, delivered it to his house, 121 Thomas Street; that he did not notice the address on the barrel, but he got the same from the station agent on presenting the bill of lading given him by the defendant.

Cyrus Caldwell, another drayman, testified that, at the request of some man he could not possibly identify, he, about six or eight days before the trial in the municipal court, procured from the station two barrels, apparently of potatoes, on presenting the bills of lading given him by the man, and, by his direction, he took them to the house, 121 Thomas Street. The warehouse receipts for two barrels of potatoes were identified as having been signed for by this witness. The bill showed shipment from Richmond, Ya., and addressed to Mrs. Y. H. Blauntia.

If the jury should find that the three barrels containing the whiskey, addressed to Y. H. Blauntia, were in the care and custody of the railroad by bis consent and procurement, tbis would be considered bis possession within tbe meaning of tbe statute, S. v. Lee, supra; Hunter v. Randolph, 128 N. C., 91; Gwyn v. R. R., 85 N. C., 429, and a prima facie case would be established of itself, carrying tbe issue to tbe jury; and tbis and tbe entire testimony are, in our opinion, amply sufficient to justify defendant’s conviction of tbe charge made, “that be bad in bis possession spirituous liquors for the purpose of sale.”

It was also urged for defendant that tbe court committed error in refusing to strike out tbe testimony of tbe witness Cyrus Caldwell, for tbe reason chiefly that be failed to identify defendant as tbe man who gave him tbe two bills of lading for which be receipted; but while be failed to identify tbe man, be spoke with certainty of tbe place to which tbe man directed him to take tbe barrels, and tbis, in connection with the fact that defendant bad given similar directions about another barrel to tbe witness Johnston, and that barrels and also empty bottles, both resembling tbe barrels and the bottles of whiskey seized, were found at tbis bouse, No. 121 Thomas Street, tbe home of defendant, presented a combination of facts that rendered tbe statement of Caldwell relevant, both on tbe principal issue of guilt and on tbe question whether tbe whiskey seized and purporting to be consigned to defendant was held by tbe railroad company as defendant’s agent and with bis consent and procurement. -

There is no error, and tbe judgment on tbe verdict must be affirmed.

No error.  