Tennessee § 57-9-114 - Determination of claims to liquor.

§ 57-9-114. Determination of claims to liquor.

Where any person claims an interest in any liquor seized in accordance with this part, the court shall hear and determine the question of the right of such person so claiming an interest in such liquors; but no person shall be deemed to have any property right in any intoxicating liquors transported, received, or possessed in violation of the laws of this state; and if the court, upon the hearing of any petition alleging ownership of, or an interest in intoxicating liquors, shall ascertain that the same have been received, transported or possessed in violation of any law of this state, the court shall direct the sale or destruction thereof by the sheriff as set out in §§ 57-9-115 — 57-9-119 . Acts 1919, ch. 50, § 10; Shan. Supp., § 6798a19b10; Code 1932, § 11233; Acts 1947, ch. 127, § 2; C. Supp. 1950, § 11233; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 57-615. NOTES TO DECISIONS 1. Constitutionality. 2. Jurisdiction. 3. Trial. 4. Evidence. 5. —Sufficiency. 6. Disposition of Charges Against Persons Transporting Liquor. 7. Denial of Motion for Return of Beverages. 8. Disposition of Liquor. 1. Constitutionality. The 1947 amendment to this section was constitutional. Petition of Carter, 188 Tenn. 677, 222 S.W.2d 11, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 389 (1949). 2. Jurisdiction. Justice of peace did not have jurisdiction of proceeding to recover beer seized by sheriff. Young v. Chumley, 189 Tenn. 322, 225 S.W.2d 77, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (1949). 3. Trial. The petitioner in a proceeding for the return of intoxicating liquor seized by a sheriff, as being illegally transported, is not entitled to a jury trial. Caneperi v. State, 169 Tenn. 472, 89 S.W.2d 164, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1936). 4. Evidence. In a proceeding for the return of liquor seized by a sheriff as being illegally transported, it was not error to admit testimony of a witness who knew the persons designated on the packages and their reputations, as against the objection that it was hearsay evidence. Caneperi v. State, 169 Tenn. 472, 89 S.W.2d 164, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1936). 5. —Sufficiency. Where a sheriff seized and held intoxicating liquor on the ground that it was being illegally transported, a finding of the trial court that the liquor in question was being illegally transported will not be disturbed on appeal, in view of evidence of bogus documents to support the claim of interstate shipment, and of markings on packages designating Tennessee bootleggers as assignees, and repudiation of the parties. Caneperi v. State, 169 Tenn. 472, 89 S.W.2d 164, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1936). 6. Disposition of Charges Against Persons Transporting Liquor. Where a sheriff seized and held intoxicating liquor on the ground that it was being illegally transported, the trial judge is not bound by the verdict of not guilty in a prosecution of the persons in charge of the truck containing the liquor. Caneperi v. State, 169 Tenn. 472, 89 S.W.2d 164, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1936). That an indictment for illegal possession of liquor was quashed because of an illegal search and seizure, does not overcome the presumption of illegal possession raised by this section, and is no determination of the legality of the possession. Ambrester v. State, 172 Tenn. 144, 110 S.W.2d 332, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1937). 7. Denial of Motion for Return of Beverages. Since motion of defendant for return of beverages illegally seized, following petition alleging such illegal seizure, under which liquor was suppressed as evidence, was incidental to prosecution under the liquor laws, order denying motion could not be reviewed after dismissal of case, and an independent proceeding was necessary. Homolko v. State, 155 Tenn. 467, 295 S.W. 66, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1927). 8. Disposition of Liquor. Where whiskey which was in the unlawful possession of defendant was seized by the sheriff and where defendant was tried for such possession but the charges were dismissed because of illegality of the search and seizure, defendant was not entitled to the return of the whiskey since to return such whiskey to the defendant would have the effect of making the defendant a criminal. Ambrester v. State, 172 Tenn. 144, 110 S.W.2d 332, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1937). Liquor found to have been received, possessed, or transported in violation of the laws of this state is directed to be destroyed, unless a petition for reclamation is filed by some person claiming to have an interest therein, and if on the hearing it appears that the receipt, possession, or transportation of the liquors was unlawful, destruction is ordered, but if it appears that such receipt, possession, or transportation was lawful, necessarily the act must be construed to mean that the court should direct the restoration of the liquors to the owner. Casone v. State, 176 Tenn. 279, 140 S.W.2d 1081, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 122 (1940).