147 Ky. 715
Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
PARKER v. COMMONWEALTH.
April 12, 1912.
ACTION: Reversed, with directions.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Laurel County.
Orene Parker was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, and appeals.

CARROLL, J.
The appellant, under an indictment charging him with the sale of intoxicating liquor in local option territory in Laurel county, was convicted upon the following agreed statement of facts: "It is agreed: That the Orene Parker Company is a partnership, with its principal office and place of business in Covington, Ky. That Orene Parker is the sole owner, doing business under the name of the Orene Parker Company, and that he resides in Covington, Kenton county, Ky. That the defendant the Orene Parker Company and Orene Parker have a warehouse and bottling plant in Covington, Ky. That they are the sole makers and sellers of a brand of liquor known as 'Old Maid Whisky'. That said whisky is made by the aforesaid Orene Parker and the Orene Parker Company, in Nelson county, Ky., and taken to their warehouse and bottling plant in Covington, Ky., and there bottled, branded, stamped, and prepared by them to ship to the general trade. It is further agreed that, in less than 12 months next before the filing of the indictment in this case, the defendant mailed a letter from Covington, Ky., addressed to Robert Baker, at London, Laurel county, Ky., offering to sell him liquor, and with it inclosing a return envelope addressed to the Orene Parker Company, Covington, Ky.; *** and also an order blank, and known by said company as 'cash order blank of the Orene Parker Company,' *** on the back of which order blank is listed the price of liquor handled by said company, and according to the terms of which agreement they agreed to ship prepaid liquor at a certain price per gallon to Mr. Baker at London, Laurel county, Ky. It is further agreed that they sent these letters and order blanks to many citizens in Laurel county, Ky., and to many in and around London, many of whom ordered liquor and many who did not. It is further agreed: That Robert Baker filled out the order blank and signed it according to directions in the letter aforesaid and the order blank aforesaid, and got a money order from the United States post office at London, Laurel county, Ky., payable to the defendants at Covington, Ky., for $2.85. That he put said order and money order in the self-addressed envelope furnished by the defendants. *** That said letter and orders were received by the defendant the Orene Parker Company and Orene Parker in Covington, Ky., and that they acknowledged the receipt of the same by a letter, addressed from Covington, Ky., to Robert Baker at London, Laurel county, Ky., acknowledging the receipt of said order, and stating that the liquor would be shipped to said Baker pursuant to the order which he had mailed at London, Laurel county, Ky., four quarts of liquor made as aforesaid and of the brand as aforesaid, as set out in part first of this agreement. That said liquor was shipped from Cincinnati, express charges prepaid, to Robert Baker, at London, Laurel county, Ky., and was there received and accepted by him. It is further agreed that at the time of said order the defendants were taking their liquor from the warehouse in Covington, Ky., and shipping it to various parts of the state of Kentucky, and to London, Laurel county, Ky., from Cincinnati, Ohio." A reversal of the judgment is asked upon the ground that, under the agreed statement of facts, the appellant did not sell any whisky in and was not guilty of a violation in Laurel county of the local option laws of the state.

As the whisky was shipped from Cincinnati, in the state of Ohio, to the purchaser in the city of London, Laurel county, in the state of Kentucky, the shipment of the whisky was clearly an interstate transaction. It was not subject to control or regulation by the laws of this state, and its interstate character was not affected by the method employed in the solicitation of the sale of the whisky. It is equally clear that the fact that the whisky was manufactured in this state, and for some time before its sale and shipment was stored in Covington, in this state, did not in any way affect the character of the transaction as an interstate shipment. It was a matter of no importance where the whisky was manufactured or where it was stored previous to its shipment. The rules of law applicable are the same as if the whisky had been manufactured and stored in Ohio or some other state and had never been brought into this state previous to its shipment. As the sale of the whisky was consummated and the title to it passed when it was delivered to the carrier in Cincinnati, Ohio, it would seem to follow necessarily that the appellant could not be convicted for selling the whisky in Laurel county.

But if the shipment from Covington to Cincinnati, and its reshipment from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Laurel county, should be considered as a mere device or scheme in an attempt to evade the laws of this state, and the transaction treated as if the whisky was in fact shipped from Covington, Ky., it would not help the case for the commonwealth. Keeping in mind the fact that this was not a C. O. D. transaction, and that the full purchase price of the whisky and the carrier charges were paid before it was delivered to the common carrier for shipment, the sale, under repeated decisions of this court, must be deemed to have taken place in Covington and not in Laurel county. The fact that the sale of the whisky was solicited and the manner in which the purchase and sale was consummated can have no influence in determining where the sale took place.

So that, whether the delivery of the whisky to the consignee, Baker, took place in Cincinnati, Ohio, or in Covington, Ky., no offense was committed by the appellant in Laurel county, as there was no sale in that county. The soliciting of purchasers for whisky in local option territory not being a violation of law, it is wholly immaterial in what method or by what means the soliciting is done or the sale effected.

Nor is the soliciting of sales of whisky a device or scheme to evade the operation or defeat the purpose of the law within the meaning of section 2570 of the Kentucky Statutes. As the act of soliciting is not punishable, of course no device or scheme by which the act of soliciting may be attended or accomplished can be punished. The soliciting may be privately and secretly, or boldly and openly, done. It may be by means of agents or by means of correspondence. It is the sale, and not the solicitation, that constitutes the offense in cases like this. The manner or method by which the sale is brought about or consummated is of no consequence in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The party making the sale can only be punished when the sale is made in prohibited territory. If the sale is not made in prohibited territory, it necessarily follows that the person accused must go acquit. Under all the authorities, the sale in this case was not made in Laurel county, and therefore the appellant could not be convicted of the offense of making a sale in that county.

Upon the agreed statement of facts, there should have been a judgment for the defendant.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed, with directions to proceed in conformity with this opinion.

Ky.App. 1912.
PARKER v. COMMONWEALTH.
145 S.W. 754, 147 Ky. 715


Last Update Tuesday, 18-Dec-2012 01:36:53 EST

 County Coordinator
County Coordinator: Gayle Triller
Copyright © 2015 by the KYGenWeb Team. All
rights reserved. Copyright of submitted items
belongs to those responsible for their authorship or
creation unless otherwise assigned.