(Syllabus.)

1. Intoxicating Liquors — Explanation that Whisky Was

Page 432

Transported with no Evil Intent at Request of Another Held no Legal Defense. The claim that the whisky was transported with no illegal intent is not sustained by the evidence. Such explanation constituted no legal defense.

2. Same — Removal of Whisky to Another Place on Farm Held Illegal Transportation. The removal of the whisky from a spot near the farmhouse to another place on the farm, as here shown, amounted to an illegal transportation.

Appeal from County Court, Canadian County; W.M. Wallace, Judge.

John Dolezal and Lee Whaling were convicted of the illegal transportation of whisky, and each sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and serve 30 days in jail, and they appeal. Affirmed.

Babcock & Trevathan, for plaintiffs in error.

The Attorney General, for the State.

BESSEY, P.J. The evidence as to the manner of the transportation and the place from which the whisky was transported is conflicting, but the fact that it was transported by plaintiffs in error to the place where it was found by the officers is certain. One witness says, in effect, that he saw one of the accused men in the act of carrying the jug of whisky to the place where it was broken, and the evidence indicated that the other man was implicated.

The claim made by the accused that the liquor was transported with no evil intent, at the request of the wife of the man who was there drunk, is not sustained by the evidence as to intent. Their explanation constituted no legal defense. The rule announced in DeGraff v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 519, 103 P. 538, has no application in this case. The removal of the whisky from a spot near the house to another place on the same farm, as here shown,

Page 433

amounted to an illegal transportation. Judgment affirmed.

DOYLE and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.