
    LEBRECHT v. STATE et al.
    No. 8930
    Opinion Filed April 9, 1918.
    (172 Pac. 65.)
    (Syllabus.)
    Intoxicating Liquors — Illegal Transportation —“Appurtenance.”
    An automobile used January 4, 1917, in the unlawful conveyance of intoxicating liquor 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, which provided: “When a violation of any provision of this chapter (chapter 39, Intoxicating Liquors') shall occur in the presence of any sheriff, constable, marshal,. or other officer having power to serve criminal process, it shall be the duty of such officer, without warrant, to arrest the offender and seize the liquor, bars, furniture, fixtures, vessels, and appurtenances thereunto belonging so unlawfully used.”
    Brett. J.. dissenting.
    Error from County Court, Cotton County; .1. C. Norman, Judge.
    A. L. Wilson, Deputy Sheriff of Cotton County, arrested without warrant one Bob Lebrecht for the offense of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor, and seized the liquor and the automobile in which the same was being conveyed. The return of the seizure having been made, one Sol Lebrecht appeared and claimed the automobile. Judgment forfeiting the automobile to the State was rendered, and claimant brings error.
    Reversed and remanded, with directions.
    B. M. Parmenter and John M. Young, for plaintiff in error.
    E. L. Richardson, for defendants in error.
   MILEY, J.

On January 4, 1917, A. L. Wilson, deputy sheriff of Cotton county, Okla., arrested without a warrant one Bob Lebrecht for the offense of unlawfully convoying certain intoxicating liquor, and seized the liquor and the automobile in which the same was being conveyed. Return of the seizure having been made to the county court of Cotton counity, one 'Sol Lebrecht appeared at the date fixed for hearing the return and claimed the automobile, and, among other things, alleged that seizure was wrongful and Without authority of law. Judgment was rendered January 29, 1917, adjudging the automobile forfeited to the state and ordered to deliver to the commissioners of Cotton county- to be disposed of -according to law for the benefit of the court fund of the county, to reverse which this proceeding in error is prosecuted.

Upon the authority of One Cadillac Automobile v. State of Oklahoma, 68 Okla. 116, 172 Pac. 62, this day decided, the said judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to restore the automobile to the person entitled to possession thereof.

All the Justices concur, except BRETT, J., who dissents.  