Reynolds v. State

Citations

• 52 Fla. 409

Syllabus

<p>1. Under the rule that indirect, collateral or circumstantial evidence is admissible when it tends to elucidate the inquiry, or to assist, though remotely, to a determination probably founded in truth, it is proper in a prosecution for illegally selling liquor, to admit in evidence jugs which smelled as if they had had whiskey in them, found at defendant’s place of business when he was arrested under the charge. Upon the same principle, papers acknowledging the receipt of orders for whiskey, and a letter offering commissions on sales of liquor, found at his place of business a few days after his arrest, are admissible in evidence, their probative force and effect to be determined by the jury in connection with other evidence.</p> <p>2. In a prosecution for illegally selling liquors, where there is evidence that the def endanij was acting for the purchaser and also evidence of the delivery of liquor and the receipt of money therefor by the defendant from the purchaser, in the county and on the day alleged in the information, it is for the jury to determine vAether or not it was a sale, under proper instructions from, the court.</p>