People v. Sue Chung Kee

SHAW, J.

Defendant was convicted upon an information charging him with selling and dispensing alcoholic liquors in no-license territory contrary to the provisions of what is known as the Wyllie Act. (Stats. 1911, p. 599.)

He appeals from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

Counsel for appellant insists that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict. The evidence fairly tended to prove

[733]

that defendant was a Chinese merchant in the town of Han-ford. The building in which he conducted his business consisted of two stories and a basement, the latter being divided into several rooms which were used, among other purposes, for storage of merchandise and as a place for the cooking and serving of food to others than the family of defendant. His family, consisting of his wife and four children, lived and made their home in the second floor of the building, while the first floor was used as a storeroom in which the mercantile business was conducted. The alleged offense was committed on the evening of December 2, 1913, at which time one man alone, and later two together, went to defendant’s place and without, so far as shown, any invitation so to do, went down into the basement, where they found defendant, and expressed themselves as being “awfully dry” and desirous of obtaining a drink; in response to which defendant gave to each of them a bottle of beer, and to one a second bottle. While they were sitting at a table engaged in drinking the beer from the bottles, the city marshal appeared and arrested defendant. It appears that the day before defendant had purchased and had delivered at his place a quantity of beer, and while he admits serving to these men in the basement under his storeroom, over which his family resided, it is nevertheless insisted that the serving thereof was at his own home to these men as his guests as an act of hospitality, where no money or thing of value was received in return therefor, and that the place where served was not a place of public resort, and hence the act constituted no offense, as provided in the first subdivision of section 16 of the act aforesaid. The court embodied this provision of the law in an instruction given to the jury, and it is apparent from the verdict rendered that they were not satisfied the evidence established the claim made by defendant. Considering all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, we are of the opinion the jury were justified in reaching a conclusion inconsistent with the theory urged by appellant that these three men found in the basement drinking beer were so doing at his home as his guests. We entertain no doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict.