People v. Pryor

BURNETT, J.

Defendant was charged in three separate counts of an information with manufacturing, selling, and having in his possession “certain intoxicating liquor, to wit, brandy then and there containing one-half of one per cent or more of alcohol by volume” in violation of a certain ordinance of the county of Tuolumne. He was convicted’ on all the counts and appeals from the judgment.

The only point made is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, but there is no merit whatever in the contention.

As to the first count appellant states his position as follows: “The first charge, the manufacture of liquor was placed before the jury on a presumption, there was no evidence that alcoholic liquor had been manufactured, the only evidence adduced to sustain said charge was the finding of a steamer and some spoiled or decayed grain in a bath-room of appellant’s house, and a tube that was found by a third party in a spring adjacent to the house.” Herein appellant is in error. William Sweeney, the sheriff of the county, testified that on May 21, 1922, he went to the place occupied by defendant, and in response to the question, “ While you were there on this particular occasion did you find any alcoholic liquors or a still or any other evidence of the manufacture of alcoholic liquor?” he replied: “Yes, Mr.

[157]

Pryor delivered a bottle of liquor to me from Ms bedroom and there was a part of a bottle in another part of the house, and a small still in the bathtub, and some material there fermenting in a tub—made from a sawed-off barrel.” He further testified that the material in the tub was barley, that it was “fermenting like you find it in all places where liquor is made”; that “from my past experience finding in a number of places liquor fermenting ... I had seen it in a number of places, seen it working, going through the same process” he “took it to be for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor.” He further testified that the defendant did not deny the ownership of the “still.”

Austin Morales also testified that for a time he stopped at the “Pryor place”; that while there he saw a “still” upon the property, “there was mash in the barrel in the bathroom; there was com and yeast,” that he saw “a copper boiler and a coil and cooler”; that he took the “still and elbow” at the direction of Mr. Pryor, the defendant, to a certain garage and left it there for two days to get it fixed; “Mr. Pryor sent me back to the gentlemen that owned the garage and they didn’t have it fixed and he wrapped it up and in a short time he took it to Stockton.” The record discloses other circumstances in line with the foregoing, but we have quoted sufficiently to justify the conclusion that defendant was engaged in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor.