
    (111 So. 421)
    No. 28343.
    STATE v. QUEBADEAUX.
    (Jan. 3, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1927.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    I. Criminal law <&wkey;95 — Amendment does not deprive state court of jurisdiction over offense of possessing intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes (Const. U. S. Amend. 18).
    Const. U. S. Amend. 18 does not render offense of possession of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes cognizable only by federal courts, but state court has jurisdiction.
    
      2. Crimina! law @=>201 — Defendant may be convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes in both federal and state courts.
    That defendant has been convicted of possession of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes in the United States courts, does not prevent his conviction for the same offense in state court.
    3. Criminal law @=1213—Punishment for possessing intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes is not cruel or excessive, where within limits o,f statute (Act No. 39 of 1921 [Ex. Sess.]).
    Where punishment inflicted for possession of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, contrary to Act No. 39 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.) is within limits of statute, punishment is not cruel or excessive.
    Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial Disl.rict Court, Parish of Acadia; W. W. Bailey, Judge.
    Lessin Quebadeaux was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Thomas Arthur Edwards, of Lake Charles, for appellant.
    Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., Percy T. Ogden, Asst. Atty. Gen., James A. Gremillion, Dist. Atty., of Crowley (E. R. Sehowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.
   ST. PAUL, J.

The defendant was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes.

1.

He complains that since the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States such offense is cognizable only by the United States and the federal courts.

This same contention was made in State v. Venezia, 151 La. 349, 91 So. 761, and was rejected as unsound by this court. It was also rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Lanza, 260 U. S. 377, 43 S. Ct. 141, 67 L. Ed. 314.

II.

He also complains that having already been convicted of said offense before the United States courts, he cannot again be convicted before the state courts for the same offense.

The same contention was made in State v. Hebert, 158 La. 209, 103 So. 742, and was also rejected as unsound by this court. It was also rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hebert v. Louisiana, 47 S. Ct. 103, 71 L. Ed.-.

III.

He further complains that the punishment inflicted on him was cruel and excessive.

The penalty inflicted was within the limits of the statute (Act No. 39 of 1921 [Ex. Sess.]: and this court has already held that the penalties imposed by said statute are not cruel or excessive. State v. Jackson, 152 La. 656, 94 So. 150; State v. Sharp, 156 La. 531, 100 So. 707.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.  