" To the same effect see State v. Boever, 203 Iowa 86, local citation 90, 210 N.W. 571. Under the Iowa intoxicating liquor laws, many offenses are named.
Under that statute it was held that the mere possession of intoxicating liquor was a violation of the statute. State v. Boever, 203 Iowa 86, 210 N.W. 571; State v. Wareham, 205 Iowa 604. 218 N.W. 145; State v. Bamsey, 208 Iowa 796, 223 N.W. 873. It was further held under that statute that the proof of possession of intoxicating liquor made a case for the jury; that the burden was not upon the state to prove that such possession did not come within any of the exceptions referred to in the statute; and that the burden of proving that the possession did come within any of such exceptions was upon the defendant. See State v. Boever, 203 Iowa 86, 87, 210 N.W. 571, 572, wherein it is said:
We have held, however, that the absence of an adjudication and declaration of forfeiture of the liquor, is not a condition precedent to the introduction of evidence tending to show a violation of the liquor law. This question was directly passed upon in State v. Boever, 203 Iowa 86, 210 N.W. 571, 572, where the same contention was made as in the case at bar. In that case, loc. cit. 88, we said:
It is fundamental in a criminal case that all the instructions should be read together, to determine their adequacy and correctness. State v. Warren, 242 Iowa 1176, 47 N.W.2d 221; State v. Katz, 241 Iowa 115, 40 N.W.2d 41; State v. Blackburn, 237 Iowa 1019, 22 N.W.2d 821; State v. Healy, 217 Iowa 1155, 251 N.W. 649; State v. Boever, 203 Iowa 86, 210 N.W. 571. The giving of instructions is governed largely by the evidence. State v. Johnson, 222 Iowa 1204, 271 N.W. 223. The defendant's possession of this liquor under the law was illegal unless she held it by virtue of the exceptions to the general prohibition, and the burden rested upon her. She admitted she knew the officers were strangers and had no bottle when they came in, and yet she served them alcoholic drinks.
"We have held, however, that the absence of an adjudication and declaration of forfeiture of the liquor, is not a condition precedent to the introduction of evidence tending to show a violation of the liquor law. This question was directly passed upon in State v. Boever, 203 Iowa 86, 210 N.W. 571, 572, where the same contention was made as in the case at bar."
1 Greenl. Ev. 12, is quoted in support of the last statement. It is not clear whether the decision rests upon the stated "general rule" or upon the last-quoted statement, based on Greenleaf's pronouncement. In State v. Boever, 203 Iowa 86, 87, 210 N.W. 571, 572, we considered a case in which defendant was accused of the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. The statute provided in effect that no one, by himself, agent, or servant, shall keep for sake or have possession "except as provided in this title * * *."
The statute makes the possession of intoxicating liquor an offense. State v. Bamsey, 208 Iowa 796, 223 N.W. 873; State v. Wareham, 205 Iowa 604, 218 N.W. 145; State v. Boever, 203 Iowa 86, 210 N.W. 571. [4] IV. The indictment alleged that the liquor was possessed by defendant for the purpose of disposing of the same unlawfully, by gift or otherwise, and for the purpose of bootlegging.
Under Section 1924, it is an offense unlawfully to possess intoxicating liquors. State v. Bamsey, 208 Iowa 796; State v. Wareham, 205 Iowa 604; State v. Boever, 203 Iowa 86. Resultantly, "whoever shall erect, establish, continue, or use any building, erection, or place" for such purpose shall be "guilty of a nuisance," as declared in Section 1930.
Possession, possession. in and of itself, constitutes an unlawful act. State v. Wareham, 205 Iowa 604; State v. Boever, 203 Iowa 86. This court said, in the Wareham case, supra: "The defendant timidly argues that the mere possession of intoxicating liquor is not made an offense by Section 1924 of the Code, but this question was passed on recently by this court and the statute otherwise construed."
Being in the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor at a place, within the meaning of that term as used in the statute, he was guilty of a nuisance, as defined thereby. The instructions, therefore, were not erroneous. State v. Boever, 203 Iowa 86; State v. Wareham, 205 Iowa 604. II. The empty bottles taken from the premises were admitted in evidence, as was also the testimony of the officers as to the statements made by the defendant to them at the time of the 2.