Opinion
6 Div. 273.
December 20, 1945.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; W. C. Warren, Judge.
Bill by the State against Hugh Snyder, Otis Hankins and one 1933 Model Chevrolet Automobile, to condemn said automobile for use by respondent Hankins in illegal transportation of prohibited liquor, to which a claim was interposed by respondent Snyder. From a decree of condemnation, the claimant appeals.
Affirmed.
Gordon Davis, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
To warrant condemnation the State must show that the automobile was being used to transport illegal liquor, from one point to another in a dry county, and that the owner of the automobile knew or should have known or could have known by due diligence that the automobile was transporting illegal liquor or that the party to whom he loaned the automobile had such a reputation for handling and dealing in liquors that the owner should know that he was likely to transport liquors in said automobile. State v. Hughes, 203 Ala. 90, 82 So. 104.
Wm. N. McQueen, Atty. Gen., and Clarence M. Small, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
In condemnation proceedings of this nature the burden is upon the intervener to establish his claim and to show that he had no knowledge or notice of illegal use of the vehicle, and could not by reasonable diligence have obtained notice thereof to prevent the illegal use. Code 1940, Tit. 29, § 250; Anderson v. State, 246 Ala. 468, 20 So.2d 864; State v. One Lexington Auto., 203 Ala. 506, 84 So. 297; State v. Crosswhite, 203 Ala. 586, 84 So. 813; State v. Merrill, 203 Ala. 686, 85 So. 28; Parker v. State, 246 Ala. 372, 20 So.2d 719.
The suit is for condemnation of an automobile under the statutes. Code 1940, Tit. 29, §§ 245 and 248; Thomas v. State, 241 Ala. 381, 2 So.2d 772.
There is no insistence in the pleading that the transportation was from a wet county through a dry county into another wet county in the state. Williamson v. State ex rel. Evans, 244 Ala. 609, 14 So.2d 587; Newton v. State, 241 Ala. 1, 200 So. 428, 134 A.L.R. 420. The charge is illegal transportation or conveyance of prohibited liquors or beverages from point to point in the County of Tuscaloosa, which we judicially know is a dry county.
The cause was tried before the court rendering judgment of condemnation on oral testimony and is subject to the usual presumptions supporting a verdict of a jury.
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that before an automobile can be condemned and sold by the State of Alabama, the evidence must show the automobile was transporting illegal liquors from a point in the state to and in a dry county, and if the owner of the automobile was not driving the car himself but had loaned it to another party who was driving at the time the automobile was seized, the evidence must show by positive proof that the owner knew or should have known or could have known by due diligence that the automobile was transporting illegal liquors in a dry county, or that the party he loaned the automobile to had such a reputation for handling and dealing in liquors that the owner should have known the said person was likely to illegally transport liquors in the automobile on the occasion the car was to be used and was used. State v. Hughes, 203 Ala. 90, 82 So. 104; Code 1940, Tit. 29, § 250; Parker v. State ex rel. Embry, Solicitor, 246 Ala. 372, 20 So.2d 719; Anderson v. State ex rel. Dormon, 246 Ala. 468, 20 So.2d 864.
That is to say, this court has repeatedly held that in condemnation proceedings of this character, the burden is upon the intervenor (claimant) to establish his superior claim, and that he had no knowledge or notice of the illegal use of the vehicle and could not have by reasonable diligence obtained notice thereof to prevent the illegal use of the car in the respects indicated. The testimony of the witnesses, Scarbrough, Waites, Kramer, meets the requirements of the law which authorized condemnation of the vehicle used for the conveyance of contraband liquor from one point in the state to another and in the dry County of Tuscaloosa.
The claimant and respondent were friends of long standing, knew that each other were addicted to drinking liquor and by the statement of claimant himself to the policeman that he knew that liquor was in the car at the time he lent it to Hankins to drive, he verifies the fact of illegal transportation.
The instant record has been examined, and as observed in Davis v. Davis, 241 Ala. 385, 2 So.2d 780, it would serve no good purpose to indulge in a full discussion of the evidence. Code 1940, Tit. 13, § 66.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GARDNER, C. J., and FOSTER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.