r ^ I I ^ ^<^^ ; MIDA'S COMPENDIUM OF INFORMATION FOR THE LIQUOR INTERESTS BY WILLIAM MIDA, KDITOR OF "MIDA'S CRITEKION" OF THE WHOLESALE LIQUOR INTERESTS MIDA'S ILLUSTRATED MAGAZINE, AN EXPONENT OF PERSOSAL LIBERTY MIDA'S NATIONAL REGISTER OF TRADE-MARKS FOR THE LIQUOR INTERESTS MIDA'S DIRECTORY OF WHOLESALE DEALERS, DISTILLERS AND IMPORTERS CHICAGO: CRITERION PUBLISHING COMPANY. 1899. Copyright, 1899, BV William Miua. C.ktk llbhAJ<-> AGRIC. DEO. >s>c PREFATORY. There is no business beset with so many intricate legal restrictions, federal, state and local, as iliat of the traffic in spirituons, malt and vinous liquors. The legal decisions and internal revenue regulations have become so numerous and complex that an authoritative sum- mary which may serve as a guide to avoid pitfalls has become an imperative necessity, and this has been the main incentive that led to the- preparation of this work. The increasingly important subjects of trade-marks, ware- house receipts and statistical and other information for the daily conduct of business also receive due attention. Distiller, brewer, wine producer, importer, dealer — whole- sale and retail — and all collateral branches will find this work an indispensable adjunct for daily reference and truly encyclopedic in its range. The Table of Contents will reveal the wide scope of the work, every contingency as it may arise being provided for, and prece- dent cases cited in a terse, comprehensive way. Being intended for the use of business men, the subjects are treated in plain language divested of all legal and technical phraseology. The matter has been so thoroughly systematized that the desired information can be readily found on any question that may pre- sent itself. This Compendium crystalizes the arduous labors and painstaking researches of over a third of a century devoted to the liquor interests. That it may fulfill the piiri)ose intended — of safeguarding the interests of the trade — is the sincere wish of the publisher. WILLIAM MIDA. Chicago, May 15, 1899. 896782 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. PARTI. COrUT DECISIONS OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE. COURTS AFFECTING THE LIQUOR INTERESTS. CHAPTER 1. CoUectious aucl Recovery 33 " 2. Local Option 43 3. Place of Sale 50 " . 4. Transportation to " 5. Interstate Commerce 57 " 6. Original Packages 60 " 7. License C6 8. Municipal Power : 87 9. South Caroliua Dispensary Act 91 " 10. Malt IJquors and Brewers 03 11. Druggists 97 12. Civil Damages 103 13. Illegal Sale 112 14. Minor 118 " 15. Sales on Sunday and Holidays 125 10. Social Club 132 " 17. Sales by Tenants and Others 137 " 18. Injunction 139 19. Power of Officers 141 " 20. Jury and Jurors 142 21. Screens 144 22. Bonds 14G 23. Corporations 147 24. Agents and Brokers 149 " 25. Miscellaneous 151 PART II, WAREHOUSE RECEII'TS .\ND TRADE MARKS. CHAPTER 1. Warehouse Receipts 103 2. Trade Marks 174 5 6 ^ SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. PAUT III. INTERNAL UKVENUE LAWS AND REGDI/ATIONS. CIIAPTKU 1. Wluilcsale I-lqiior Dealers 203 J. Ititiill Liiiiior IH'iilers 214 :!. Distillers • 218 " 4. Hottliug In r...ii.l 231 5. .Speeial 'Aix 235 " C. General Laws and Uegulatlous 241 7. Kegnlatious Ueversee;cisioi«ipi 40 Liquors sold for use in prohibition state 40 Value of original packages can be recovered 41 Partner— Power to bind firm 41 Collecting outlawed debt 41 Of money loaned for drink 42 8 TABLE or CONTENTS. CIIAITER II. LOCAL OPTION. FLORIDA- AM stntutfs nuthorlzins license susiiendetl 43 GEOUGIA- Expivss compatili'S c.-uuiot ili-llver ll<|ii(irs nt gi'iieral olflee 43 Power of lowu coniK-il iiiul legislature 43 Klve-nille law applies only to snles outsitle of iiieoi-porated towns 44 KICNTUCKY-- Tippliiig liousf 45 KfTeet of amendment of city charter 45 Petitions for election 45 Applies to illstiller'8 license 40 Repeal of law 46 MICHIGAN— Power of boanl of supervisors 40 Notice, liow published 40 Hrugpists liable under local option 47 MISSISSIPPI— Record must show facts as to petitioners 17 MISSOURI— Con.stitution:Uity of local option 47 TENNESSEE— Signers of p<'titlon may take ofT their names 47 TEXAS- Petltion for ekn'tion 48 Mandamus to couiik-I election ortler 48 I/egislature eaiinot imi)oso new ennditions 48 Oral evidentx' of contents of iR'tlLious admissible 48 Requirements of election order 40 Place of sale 49 Trade of llcjuors Is sale 4U One may ke<'p liquor for another 49 Partial exemplioii cousUtutional 50 NORTH CAROLINA- NO vesltil riglit acquired by dealers 50 CHAPTER 111. PLACE OE SALE. Internal revenue ruling 50 Sale Is made where completed by delivery 51 Distance from chiircli or s<-ho<)l measuritl in a direct line 51 Where delivcriKl to carrier 51 Where ag«'iit lives wiien goods sent in gross and delivered severally by agent 52 TABLE OF CONTENTS. g Laws of place to which liquors shipixnl liave no efTwt 52 Legality depends iux>n >\ nether ixn-sou ordering; was agent of pur- chaser or of dealer 52 Delivery outside of saloon 53 At warehouse from whieh shipped 53 Sale from wagon in local option district illegal 53 Carrier is agent of C. O. I), purchaser 53 Sale completed where seller resides 53 Effect of shipment C. O. D.— Carrier is agent of seller 54 riaee of trial— Indictment 54 CHAPTER IV. TRANSPORTATION. Railway liable only for value given in bill of lading 55 Police powers of state 55 Forfeiture of conveyance 55 Railway conductor cannot take up mileage books 56 CHAPTER V. i INTERSTATE COMMERCE. State laws visiting penalty on can-ier void 57 Vermont law not uuconstitutional 57 South Carolina requirement of chemist's certificate void 57 Dispensary laws not unlawful discrimination 58 State police law 58 Kansas prohibitorj- law valid 59 Does not apply to selling by sample 59 Liquors not seizable in transit 59 CHAPTER VI. ORIGINAL PACKAGES. Interstate commerce — Right to ship and sell 00 United States law is constitutional 61 Taxable when mixed with mass of prop<»rty in state 62 Ciirrier cannot refuse to transjxirt to prohibition state 62 Definition of original package 62 Bottles are not original paeU.age 63 Bottles are original package 63 What c-onstitutes original package 63 Where customers do the oiitniing 64 Must sell package as well as contents 64 Definition of original package 64 Bottles are not original package 65 Citizen of another state may store li'^uor for sale in South Carolina.. . . 66 lo TABLE OF CONTENTS. CUAPTER VII. LICENSE. ALABAMA- Lic'<-ii8e iiol iHN'iU'd for rjiU* of i-iitiiv sttxk Oti ARKANSAS— SvlliiiK lliinor witliont lli-t-nse 00 CAT.II'X)KNIA- OnlliiHJUf h.ld v:ili(l OC l{ilriii->- power to rvfusc 07 Keniole wallii'sst-s 07 COU^RADO— Power of town t-ouucil 07 CONNECTICUT- Snlu wiUiout licenso and koepiug witliout license iire distinct offi-nsos 07 DELAWARE— Assi^iiuout from liiisband to wife not valid 08 FLORIUA- .Not tt> Is.suc on illcpai petition 08 Onlluiinee void for di.SLTiiiiinatioii 08 GEORGIA- Wlthiu iKdiee ]K)wer and rt'vo<':iltk' by city 09 ILLINOIS— Ordinaii'-e void for diseriuiinatioii 09 Ordlimuee lieid valid 09 Power of city council 09 SlH'cial ordiiuince of Cairo void •. 70 INDIANA- Applieatlon— Act of bartender 70 Bond, even If invalid, protects sales 71 Woman caanot hold liwn.s«> 71 May Im- i-evoiietl at any lime 71 .MiLst not assume tUat lllenaiity would take place 71 Not a contract 72 Salo<>nijec|H'r ciuinot liavi- a partner 72 Not subJiH't to collateral attack 73 Rcinoustr;incu made tbrough attorney 73 lOWA- Consent of adjoininf; pi-operly owner 73 No refund of mulct taxes 73 Riglit to sell 74 Sale not legal for partner 74 KPJNTLCKY- Appiliation by distiller— Notice 74 Sunday sale Is not sale without lieeuse 75 SaJeti by physician 75 ltHtue«l to llrm protects n-malnini; partner afli-r dissolution.... 75 TABLE OF CONTENTS. ii LOUISIANA— Planter wlio sells only to employes requires license 76 MARYLAND— Constitutional law— Validity 70 MASSACHUSETTS— Law limiting retail liemisos is valid 76 MICHIGAN— Riglit of administratrix to continue business 76 Retail dealers, all who sell by tbe drink 77 County treasurer no right to receipt l"or license before filing bond 77 Two or more bars in one house 77 Mississippi- Petitions 77 Required for each bar 78 MISSOURI— State and city license required 78 Sale without license 78 NEBliASKA— Void if issued on credit 79 Physicians and dniggists excepted ; 79 Notice of application 79 Rights of remonstrants 79 Mandamus , 80 School districts 80 Refund when caJiceleil 80 Notice of application 80 NEW JERSEY— Must not be excessive 80 Not revocable for Sunday selling 81 County license no defense under city ordinance 81 NEW YORK— Filing- assignment and possession of certificate unnecessary.... 81 Saloon license Is prop>rty 82 To sell within prohibited distance of ehui-ch or school 82 OHIO— Right under Dow law to store in cooler 82 OKLAHOMA— Malt liquor sale illegal 83 PENNSYLVANIA— Dealer not bound by oral agreement 83 Brewer can pay saloomkeeper's license 83 May be refused arbitrarily 84 Stockholders in distilling or brewing company not entitled to license 8-4 12 TABLE or CONTENTS. TEXAS— C5onstUullonallt.v of law 84 Which (11<1 iKil liiilhatc place of Kale 84 I'aj'iiiciit of iiilcnial revenue lax may U- liiinnliii e.l in evlJeuce. 85 WISCONSIN- Is not transforalile 85 IiiJiitU'tion will not Ik' at snlt of one who will sufrt-r no loss by l.'suc 85 Powers of legislature 80 Payment '. 80 Hnwer's agent must be lletMise*! to sell In other towns 86 WYO.MINC- Power of city 80 Dlscreliou as to Issuing 87 CHAPTER VIII. MUNICIPAL POWER. County 8up<>rvlsors have no |H»wer over rorixirale towns 87 May be delegated by state 88 County in fietjrgia cannot levy arbitrarj' tax 88 Ordinance overruled by statute of state 88 City may iiroiiibit dninkennes.'i 80 Cannot prohibit sale of liop t«'a 89 State prohibition In Kansas does not prohibit onnctniont of city ordi- nance 89 Ordinance void In one pnit may be valid in other parts 89 No authority to destroy ll(|uor in anticipation of riot 89 Cannot revoke licenst' for Sunday selling 90 Munk'iiHil Corporations— Authority to sell liquor— Injunction 90 CIIAPTEU IX. SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY Aai\ Liquors may be shippnl to individuals for their own use in South Cnii>liiia 9] Constitutional law— Interstate commerce— Intoxicating liquors Di Liquor In private house 91 Interstate itiuiiuerix' 92 Mono|H)lles 92 C4iniiol override Interstat4' couitneret' 92 Act Is conKtIlutlonal as iwlice regulations 93 Does not n'|)eal other laws 93 CHAPTER X. MALT LIgUORS ANI> lUtEW K.RS. Brewers must pay warehouse lav in Ohio 93 Brvwer'B license not iietiU-d in Illinois !tl TABLE OF CONTENTS. 13 Law docvs uot iMOliibit carrying on business 94 Ctompany may have license for different breweries 94 Beer and all malt liquors intoxicating 95 Indiana beer tax valid 95 Beer presumed to be intoxicating' 95 "Beer" understood to be t!ie fermented malt liquor in common use. . 95 Beer subject to seizure and forfeiture 96 Salicylic acid in beer proliibited in Ohio 96 Intoxicating quality of beer a question for .iury 96 Contracts in restraint of trade by brewers 96 CHAPTER XI. DRUGGISTS. Patent medicine or distilled spirits 97 Sale of malt tonics 97 Sample bottles do not require stamps 97 Sale for medical pur|K>ses 98 Discretion as to licensing constitutional 98 Drug clerk can only sell on proper prescription 98 Cannot sell alcohol for any pui-pose iu lov.-a 99 Pharmacist's permit 99 Form of information 99 Application for license 100 Not necessary to show druggi-st was not licensed saloonkeeiier 100 One sale not sufficient for conviction of keeping jtlace for illegal sale. . 100 Illegal sales 101 Selling without license 101 Not liable if tincture of ginger is used as intoxicant 101 May be required to produce prescription in court 101 Information must contain name of purcha.ser 103 License not required for sale on prescription in local option district In Texas 102 Sale is presumed illegal unless on prescription 102 CHAPTER XII. CIVIL DAMAGES. Liability for money stolen 103 Measure of damages 103 Who are liable 103 Proper to exclude evidence of refusal to sell to husband when drunk. . 103 Instruction to jui-y 104 Children and wife may sue jointly or separately 104 May show proximate cau«,e of death 104 Saloonkeeper responsible for sale by bartender 104 Father may recover for death of son 104 Liability for proximate cause of death 105 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Saloonkeeper responsililo for danmfre to property values 105 Wife may recover tlii>ii^Mi sale was iiindD to stniii^-r 105 Administrator cniiiiot siU' for damages 100 Sufficiency of notice 100 Conviction for driinkcniii'ss admissible to sbow d!inin|;es 100 Priiiol|>al and siirell.-s on dirrereiit lH)nds may lie Joined 106 Mal>l«- for daninKi- to wife of habit mil dnuiknni 106 Mother may recover for deatli of adult son who contributed to her Fupp<^>rt 107 Wiff may recover for injury to Ikt fecliuRS 107 All rontrlliutinp to intoxii-aliou liable 107 Joint liability of all vendors 107 Sureties not liable for dealer's own driuking 108 Consent of wife to sale does not defeat recovery 108 Evidence as to support of minor children 108 Essential facts to Ih' shown 100 Sureties on lK)nd liable 109 Loss of support 109 Llabio if ii(iuor iiHTciy coiilriliuli-s to daniacc 109 Not liable for daninpe lauwd by drunken man who did not i>uy of him. 110 Not necessary to prove knowMge <»r consent of lessor to sale 1 10 Father cannot re«-over for Injuries to son who has no family rehitions to him 110 I.inbilily for efftcls of II<|Uor solil ill Selling to habitual drunkard Ill Uraler's lialiiilly in Texas Ill Action siiouid be bnmciil liy father of minor, not by niollier. In Texas. 112 Mother may bring action In West Virginia 112 CII.M'IDK Mil. ILLEGAL SALE. Conviction Irrespective of l>elier or motive 112 U<'fer8 to Fall- or gift 112 Wbetlur tlie loan of iKtttlc of whisky was n subturfuge or bona flde a nuestion for Jury 113 Sale of liquor to female wrvnnts in npixT part of building not suffi- cient to convict of sale to femnk-s in wine room in Person who rJ'celves money and delivers liquor Is seller in Buying for another 1 IH Sale In country 114 Furnishing money to ptirchase liretnis<'S is jireKUmptive proof 114 Ignorance of intoxicating quality no defense 115 Purchaser Is not guilty with the seller 115 "Keeping" liquor on person for unlawful sale 115 Tenement 115 Elvidence 115 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 15 Effect of statute on county bouinriaries 116 Admissible evidence 116 Where ordered for another 116 Through intermediary 117 Evidence — Error 117 Women II7 Ck)nstitutional law 117 Conflict of testimony Hg Law providing that payment of United States internal revenue special tax is prima facie evidence of selling is constitutional 118 Barn not "own private dwelling" 118 CHAPTER XIV. MINOR. Burden of defendant to show consent of parent 118 Selling without license— Purchase for minor 119 Illegal to sell to minor for use of another 119 Passing bottle not proof of aiding in sale 119 Sale to minor for adult is illegal 120 Belief as to ago no excuse 120 Knowledge of lieing under age not essential to oft'euse 120 Complnint need not allege delivery or for whose use bought 120 Evidence of salooulvocper's reputation e.vcluded 120 Admission of evidence for defendant 131 Messengers for paa-euts 121 Dealer not liable for sale by clerk against orders 121 Misrepresentation of age no defense 123 Good faith and honest intention no defense except to mitigate penalty 122 Sale to another for minor no offense 122 Dealer liable regardless of belief of a.ge 132 Saloonkeeper must prove parents' consent 123 Offense to sell to minor for any purpose 123 No defense that minor had written order and money from adult to purchase for him 123 Salooulveeper liable for sale to another for minor 123 Delivery to minor for another not a sale to him 124 Retail dealer— Bond 124 Not to be allowed on premises 125 Not necessary to offense that dealer knew minor to be under age 125 CHAPTER XV. SALES ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS. Gift of intoxicpnts illegal on election day 125 Where town or city controls traffic licensee cannot be tried under state statute for Sunday sale. . 126 Not necessary to show drinking on premises 126 1 6 TABLE OF CONTEXTS. Sair by club 126 Pemilltlnj; jxM-son in mloon 120 CitiKcii of Itiiliiiiia iiiny Ki\e to friend iu a social wiiy on lioliilav 127 Sale m nslble for oiK>nlnK 130 Engaf:in^' in labor 130 Dentist not physician 130 Saloonkee|>er"s inlenlion immaterial 130 Election day 131 Private citizen can furnish li(|uor In his own house on Sunday to fam- ily or jfuosts 131 Openinp and gi vinp away Ixht illecal 131 KwpiuK o|M'n election day— Valiilily of election not aflfeeted 131 Municipal regidalion of V\oratetl association 183 Social <'lub may lx» l»arro<)ni 134 Liable to license in Louisiana 134 Sale of ll<|Uor by dubs ancllt neetls no license in Texas 136 Mi*8t oblaiu license Iu West Virginia 130 CnAPTKK XVII. SALE BY TENANTS AND OTHERS. Hy tenant without knowledge of owner 137 By tenant Nuisance 137 Liability of non-resident landlord 137 By clerk-lf priuclpiU al)setent , 143 Pees— Not imi>ei'ative 143 Inconii)ctent if he has strong prejudice against saloons 143 Not disqualified by temperance sentiment 144 CHAPTER XXI. SCREENS. Law not in conflict with United Slates law 144 Ordinance invalid 144 In Indiana 144 Iowa screen law refers also to wholesalers who give away by the glass 145 Includes hotel office used as baiTOom 145 Applied to "open house" in Texas 145 CHAPTER XXII. BONDS. Are penal in Minnesota 146 Action to recover not abrogated by repeal of law 140 Must be sn-ictly construed 140 2 1 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS. cu.wnm XXIII. COUI'OUATIO.NS. Taslug foreign coriK)rallon8 H7 One state may exclude coriwratlon of another 147 Corporation llct-use 147 Liable for notes signed by Its otUeers 148 Coiilracls not liiviilUlati'tl li.v fiillnre to eouiply willi state law 148 CiTtltliale to do business 149 Donileile— rrlncliMil olllee 14« CUAIIliR XXIV. AOEXTS AND BROKKRS. Nonliability of princiijal for acts of agent exc-eedlng Ills autliority 149 Brokers— Agency— Ck>niniisslon 150 Princii)al and agent— Coninilssions for selling 150 Itlglit to commissions 150 CHAPl'EU XXV. MISCELLANEOUS. Cruel and unusual punishment l.'l Power of partner in business 151 Distilling slop contract— IJable for shutting down 152 Aiding another to sell 152 Buying for friend is sale 152 Buying for friend is not sale 153 Slot maciiiiic not ntfessarily gambling device 153 I'eddlcr ui-ed not pay lic-ense 153 Agent selling from sami»le is not iKMldler 153 SaloonkeeiK-T not n-siKHisible for hors*- and buggy 154 Salooukee|M'r's right to e.vix'l from the room 154 Negroes may b«> refustnl urcbase 164 Private warehouse receipts .ore negotlal)le 165 How far negotiable? 165 Priority of warehouse receipts 166 Innocent purchaser not bound by agreements of which ho lias no knowledge 108 Validity of distiller's warehouse receipts 168 Effect of transfer of warehou.se receipt 170 Warehouse receipts not valid as against taxes due from distiller 170 Lien— Notice 170 Lien— Storage 171 Warehouseman's liability for goods destroyed by fire 171 Indiana law agaiust private warehouse receipts 171 Kentucky warehouse law 172 CHAPTER II. TRADE-MARKS. What constitutes a trade-mark and what the exclusive right to it. . . . 174 A mark does not become a trade-mark until attached to vendible article and the article put on the market 175 Priority— Use— Invention 176 Owners must be diligent or lose their rights 17C Use of family name must not interfere with other's trade name. ..... 176 Name of chief ingredient not protected — Right must l>e exclusive 178 Use of individual name conflicting with older firm 179 Pale ale and beer labels 179 Label on patented articles 180 Must not contain a false representation , 180 Infringement restrained 180 Business protected against fraud 181 Geographical name cannot be used by manufacturers at other places. . 181 Wrongful use of trade-mark is evidence of an illegal act 182 False representation in label gives ground for relief 182 Penalty for shipping under false label 182 ao TABLE OF CONTENTS. Kalse use of g»x)praphlcal noiuos 182 Poworiessncss of pau-nt ollici" 183 lufringomt'iit— Imitation 183 "ralmotto" as a trado-inark 183 lU^st'inhlancc 184 Rlgbt to use one's own name In trade 184 loteniatiunal |>rotectlon 184 "Budwelwr" protciliil as a trade name 184 Imitation of lalxl 185 Geofrrnphk-al name, "Waverly," rt'gistrable 185 InfrlnBcnients of labels 185 "Iniiierlal" cannot Im- iJrotiK-Unl 185 AssiKiiincnt iH'tweon imrtners 180 OrltiTlon of unfair i-oinpetltlon 186 Eircct of omission In registration 186 (.ieographlcal name "(iejw-see" cauuot be appropriated 186 AbaJidonmcnt extlnpulslies right 187 Fon-lpii tnide^marks 187 Common apiiellatlves not entitled to protection— "Castoria" 187 Forci;;ii Infringement of domestic trademarks 187 Penalty for Infringement 188 The words "Slonopole" or "Dry Moiiopole" In connection with cham- |>agne 188 Impn^MT use of geograiiliieal name 189 Marks of iniallty are not trade-marks 189 l-taudulent and Imitation wines may be seized 189 Is transfern^l with business 190 Private bnuxls vs. manufacturers" brand 190 "O. & K." held to infringe "(J. R" Inule-mark 191 Constitutioiiiil law- Protection for unions 191 C'Tle name as a tfad<'-muik 191 IJellnltlon- Conlliet in us»> of name "Monarch" 192 Right to use of iH>rsonaI name s<'ti>t of rectifying cstablisliment prohibiteii><>rtiilioii ix-nnitti-*! 223 rilKlillInf; prohibitiHl at ccrtalu plan's 223 Masli (listiiiKiiiKlii-rau(|g 224 Hooks of o<'tloii 224 TrnnsfiT to other warehouse 224 Storeke«-p<'r'8 nbwnce 225 Tax alMitye oiK-n to Inspection 228 Agin};, maturing or purifying machine 220 Varietit's of casks 22J) Tax and assessments to be liens 220 Book, form 52c, revised, to be kept by distllk-rB 220 CIIAI'TKH 1\. BOTTLIM: I.N 15UND. Law for bottling In iKind 231 Itegulations for lH>llliiig in bond 232 Extension of lime for liottling, casing and removing spirits 233 lliiK- for completing pi-oi-ess 233 Bottling n-iniported spirits at distillery warehouse not t)ernilttetl 233 Stamps not representing taxes not retkvined 234 I'slng iinderslzeil l>ottles or underlining botties not permitted .... 234 Contents of casks removed for iNittlIng to Ik- drawn off the same day. . 234 I>lNI>osition of l»oltk's containing remnants 234 CliAl'TKK V. SPECIAL TAX. Amount of taxes 235 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 23 Liquors may be sold without special t;ix by coustruetive cousig'ument to an authorized dealer 236 Wood alcohol not taxed 236 Special tax must be paid for selliing liquor as a medicine 236 Liability for sale of fruits presen'ed in spirits 236 Tax for manufacture of imitation cider 236 Rectitiors 237 When tax due 238 Must jiay tax before commencing business 238 Tax must be paid by last day of month 238 Return required from persons liable to tax 239 Only one tax for copartnership 239 Tax foi- each place of business 239 Stamps redeemable only from proi>er persons 239 Death or removal of taxpayer. 240 No additional tax for clianse of tirm 240 Cannot restrain collection of tax 240 Lien for taxes 240 What lien for taxes covers 240 Limitation of action for recovery of taxes 240 CHAPTER \I. GENERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS. Lists of collectiom districts and location of collectors' offices 241 Causes of Forfeiture — Distillers and wholesale dealers 242 Rectifiers 244 How to ascertain taxable gallons on I'egauge 244 Shortage in pacliagcs of liquor 245 Ingwer liqueur 245 List of taxpayers liept 245 Special tax records cannot be used as evidence in state courts 245 Imitation stamp 246 Tax stamps must be posted 246 Duplicate stamps issued for packages from which stamps lost or destroyed 246 Casks 246 OiBeer must not divulge secrets 246 Signs 247 False signs 247 False name or brand 247 Remedy in case of illegal assessment 247 Officers may enter premises 247 Proprietors must not eject oflBcers 248 24 TABLE OF CONTEXTS. CUAl'TKR VII. ni:<:uL.vTioNs ui:viiusi:ii nv i-oikts. Reduction in proof doi>s not rc|>o(l In au unmarked ami unbrnndod overeask . . . . 249 Itlstiller need not pay exc-ess for |K>rtion of fermentliiK perloti 249 CHAPTER VIII. EXPOUTKRS. DrnwlMick on <'.\iK)rtntlon 250 Kniudulent dniwhack 250 Allo-\vniire for loss during tr!iMK|M>rtatloii 251 K«>pauKe of spirits for e.\i)<)rtation 251 Heimjiorted domestic whisky 251 Allowance on retrauge for exportation of i-<-iniporti-< 255 Revenue tax on hop l)eer. root Iwer ajid ale 256 One who makes "maltina" is a brewer 256 Malt w Ine 256 SiM-i'lal tax on malt l>cveragi"s 257 Bn-wer's siH'i-lal tax 257 Brewers must pay tax an wholesale (U-alers for sale from plai.-e of Btornge 257 Brewer entltl«'d to refund of exc-ess tax paid 258 Rocoverlng 8|K'(^al ass<'S8nient paid 258 Wlien brewei-s liable to retail dealer's lax 258 Callon delmed 258 Disposal of .sour mult llrs without tax stamp 259 U. S. revenue laws not a|>i>lleable to uiw possttisl.)ns 259 CHAPTER X. WINE AND BR.VNDY. Digest of rullnRH under war revenue law relating to t:ix on sparkling or otJier wines 250 Stauip tajc on wines liottleil for stomge for aging 203 Indtnlion siNirkling wines and eom|x>und lii|Uors to Ih> sold ns wine or n« n substitute for wlue 263 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 25 Si>ecial tax on wine used foi- tobacco casing fluid 265 Special tax for elder blossom wine 265 Special tax of wine manufacturer 265 Stamps on bottled wine wliicli failed of delivery by reason of imper- fections discovered in tlie wine cannot be re-used . i . . . . 265 Special tax— blacliben-y brandy 266 Bottles must be stamped even if given away 266 Fruit juice subject to tax 266 Sale of home-made wine, except by maiuifa<:-turer. requires special ta-x 266 Vintnei-s not fcixed 267 Brandy warehouses 267 Brandy exportation 267 Wine spirits used in wine free 267 Exemptions on brandy made from aiiples, peaclies, grapes, berries, etc. 268 CHAPTER XI. IMPOUTERS. Taiiff on spirits, wines and other beverages 269 French reciprocity treaty on bottled wine and vei'muth 271 Government cannot deliver goorter may enter goods 272 Duty upon reimportetl domestic spirits 273 Duties paid must be returned if goods are forfeited 273 Liability of imiwrtei- to wliolesale dealer's special tax 273 Stamps for imported liquors 273 Stamps effaced 274 Imported spirit stamps 274 Imported casks 274 Shipping under false name or brand 274 Foreign goods infringing trade-mark cannot be inii>orte Stock of whisky in bond from 18S1 to ISriS. 3'JC Wilhdrawals of whisky from bond from 18S1 to 1S!»S 327 Sjilrits iiriHlni'cd and dc-|i Spirits in distillery warehouses from lM?.t to 1S".»,S XJO ).#aka>:e In warehouses from 1S80 tolWW 330 Internal revenue rei-elpts from distilled spirits since 1802 331 ltnt<-H of ta.\ on spirits inidcr dilTen-nl laws wl'.lch have been In force. .332 .Materials used and spirits prtMliiced durin;; jiast teu years 332 Number uf diorerent kiuds of special la.\ payers 8S2 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 27 Outage table 333 Cost of spirits per proof gallon iu ci.steni room 334 Comparative value of spirits ami aUoliol . : 335 Reduction of proof 336 How to calculate given proof to its relative measure iu weight 337 Hydrometer table 338 Alcoholometer table 339 Ppirits export(Hl 330 Productiou of malt liquor from 1878 to 1SS7 3-10 I'roduction of malt liquor from 1888 to 1808 341 Internal revenue receipts fi'ora malt liquor since 18G3 342 Internal reveuue receipts from all sources for tlio i)ast ten years 342 PART VI. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AND GENERAL INFORMATION. CHAPTER I. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PRAOTICAl, BUSINESS MATTERS. May the name "Distillery Company" be used on sign by company not distilling? 346 How is sour mash distilled? 346 May retail dealers mix liquors? 347 What power has Congress ilu prohibiting liquor tratiie? 347 Liability of carrier for damage to good^ iu shipment 348 Do the woi\],s "interest and charges" in a warehouse receipt cover a purchase clause? 348 Does air improve quality of whisky? 349 Difference between license and mulct tax 349 Can tax on goods in bond destroyed by fire be enforced? 350 Is wholesale tax based upon proof gallons or wine gallons? 350 On construction of shipping under false name 350 Has dealer to give bond if goods are made under his name? 351 Is new special tax required after dissolution of partnership? 351 Liability of express company in a prohibition state 351 Assignee may sell stock under his assignor's special tax 352 Can vintner soil his produce without special tax? 352 Must wine bottles be stamped? 352 Must wine bottles and jugs be stamped? 353 What is dividing date betwoon fall and spring insixx'tion? 353 Is seller obliged to notify buyer goods are uninsured? 354 Who is liable for storage? 354 Liabilitj' for special tax on sale of whisky in bond 354 Must buyer or seller pay drayage? 355 Can retailer put up sign as wholesale dealer? 355 28 TABLE OF CONTESTS. How Ir tax on rolniporttHi whisky dc»tornilnco<'lal tax 356 Must wlilskj- lie la\-ii:ilil If oiitji;;!' Ik oxot-sslvp? 350 Can iiart of harrcl U' n'transfcrrcd from rotnll to wliolrsalo doalcr? 357 Must capacity of l>arn-l ami i)roof Ih> put on Imnfr stavp wln»n cooUs an> slilppod ? 358 CJon rclni|>orte n-filled nnrl how to enter on Form T\2 361 Quantity of peaches re(iulre'!': What gauge marks should lie entered and If shipped to retailer how to be enteriMl? 363 How to enter In Form '>'l goods shippe2 364 Ilow to enter in Form .VJ when liai'rel is dumpeil into kegs 364 How to enter balance on Form TtJ, when part of barrel has been dis- posed of 365 Ilow to enter on Form Tt'l when bottling for retail 365 Wiiai entry on Form Tx2 when wholesale and retail ilealeis put a liar- rel on tap for retiill 366 Should goods be entere2? 367 How to enter on Form ri2 goods taken b.ick from retailer 367 Wiial gauge niari;s should be entered on I'orm ri2? 307 Siiouid blackberry brandy be entered on Form ri2? 30K What number of gallons should lie entered on Form 52 for whiskies lax-paid and stored In fn'e warehouses? 368 Sl'juld original contents or contenis at time of lav paying gooils be entereranoe 380 Senator David B. Hill on personal liberty 380 Opinions of statesmen on prohibition 381 Horatio Seymour 381 Governor Andrew of Massachusetts 382 John Quincy Adams 382 Thomas Jefferson 382 Abraham Lincoln 382 PART I. Court Decisions OF THE FEDERAL AND 8TATE COURTS AFFECTING The Liquor Interests, CHAPTER I. COLLECTIONS AND RECOVERY. COMMERCIAL AGENCY BATING— FALSE STATEMENT.— Though a merchant makes to a commercial agency a statement in some respects false, to be used in giving him a rating, which he Icnows is intended to be used by others as a basis for determining whether or not credit will be extended to him, yet, where no credit is actually extended until after the lapse of a considerable period, such, for instance, as GO days, the jierson extending the credit and parting with the possession of his goods in pursuance thereof cannot assxime tliat the statement is still operative, unless the person cred- ited expressly reaffirms the truth of the statement, or at least knows or has reasons for believing that he is obtaining the credit on the faith of the representations made in the state- ment, and by reTuaining silent misleads the other party. Treadwch vs. State (La.), 27 S. E. Rep. 785. RECOVERY— BECISSION OR CANCELATION OF CONTRACT.— A contract of an intoxicated person is voidable at his ehction only. Lacy vs. Mann (Kan.), 55 Pac. Kcp. 754. RECOVERY— SALE— FRAUD— RESCISSION.- Where goods were expressed C. O. D. by a vendor in another State to a vendee in Georgia, which were entirely different from those embraced in the contract of sale, and the amount of the C. O. D. charges were paid by the vendee 3 33 34 COURT DECISIONS. to w lidiii the poous v«-ie e vendor licin;: a nonn'si(b'iil and not acM-essible, an action by attachment will lie in favor of (he buyer a^jainst the seller for the pnrcliase nmiiey paiil fm- (lie u'oihIs, without any further teniler or offer of rescission. Cohen vs. Lasky (Ga.) 30 5". £. Rep. 331. RECOVERY— RESCISSION— WHERE BUYER OFFERS LESS PRICE THAN CONTRACTED FOR.— In (he case of an executory contract for the sah' of goods to be paiil for after delivery, if dnrinp the time for de- livery the buyer notifies the seller that he will not pay the c(mtract price for the <:oods, but only a less price, tlie seller has a rijiht to aar(y defra\ided in a l»ar;;aiu may, on discoverinfi the fraud, do one of two things — he may rescind, and demand back what he has parted with, or he may aflirm the contract and sue for dama;;es. If he elects to rescind, he must do so as soon as circumstances permit aft<'r the discovery of the fraud. He cannot speculate on the chances and wait unlil he (an see whether it \\ ill be most (o his advan(ap:e to re- scinm his special means of in- formation he ought to have known it, and thereby induces his vendee in puiclmse (o Ills damage, is liable in an action COLLECTIONS AND RECOVERY. 35 at law for the damage the ijurchaser sustains through the misrepresentation, or to have the sale rescinded in a suit in equity, at the option of the purchaser. Moline Plozv Co. of Kansas City, Mo., I's. Carson, U. S. C. C. of App., 72 Fed. Rep. 387. RECOVERY— NO RECOVERY IF PART OF DEBT ILLEGAL.— A note taken to secure an account, items of which for sales on Sunday and for liquors illegally sold are blended with legal items, is entire and indivisible, and hence there can be no recovery thereon. Wadszvorth vs. Dnnnam (Ala.), jj So. Rep. 6pp. RECOVERY— SALOONKEEPER— BILL OF SALE IF INSOLVENT IS, AGAINST CREDITORS, PRIMA FACIE FRAUDULENT. An agreement between a saloonkeeper and a merchant selling him goods that he will, in case of insolvency, turn over his stock of goods to such merchant, is void as against other creditors. Also, a bill of sale by an insolvent saloonkeeper of his entire business is, against creditors, prima facie fraudulent. Chevalier vs. Crimmins, Sup. Ct., Cal., 34 Pac. Rep. p2p. RECOVERY— WHERE MORTGAGE IS GIVEN ON FRAUDULENTLY ACQUIRED GOODS TO COVER PREVIOUS DEBT OF PUR- CHASER.— Goods fraudulently purchased under circumstances which entitle the vendor to a rescission for fraud do not become the property of the purchaser, so as to enable him to mortgage them to an existing creditor as security for an antecedent debt, and thus create a mortgage lien superior to the title of the vendor, who, on discovery of the fraud, rescinds the sale and re\ licit' it a]i|>carc ])aid bv tliein to the defendants for litpiors during the years l.ssi, ISSU, IS.S*. and 1884. Tlio testimony in the ca.se brout Co. had n(\cr :il an.\ lime made any demand on the defendants for the recovery of ilic money paid them milil after ilie cnm- menc<-menl of the action. The ,Tmlurtbasor, or in any way participated in the same. Knoivlton vs. Dohcrty (Me.), 33 All. Rep. iS. KECOVERY— WHERE VENDOR HAS KNOWLEDGE THAT THE LIQUOR WILL BE RESOLD CONTRARY TO LAW. HE CANNOT RECOVER — W luTc iiiloxii ;il in^i li(|nors arc sold in Nfloaska for the pnrpose of i-nabliny llie person to resell tlieni, contrary to, or iu violation of, the hiws of this state, and the vendor has tiic knowh'dffe of the ilictrai jmrposc of the buyer, and participates with him in the illegal trallic, the sale is void, and no recovery can be had for the purchase i>rice of the liquors thus sold. Store I's. 1-iitkclstciii (Neb.), 06 N. IV. Kcp. iojo. RECOVERY— ON CONTRACT MADE IN NON-PROHIBITION STATE.— Judge I'iiillips of the Court of Appeals in Missouri de- cided at Kansas City a caseof interest to the trade, I he gist of which is llial when a contract for liquor is uiade in a stale in which there is no prohibition law, a dealer cannot evatle payment because of such a law in the state in which he does business. The parlies to the suit were Al. W . Kerwiu & Co. of Chicago against I'aU-ick Dorau of Uttumwa, Iowa, for a balance of '^'SM out of a lolal of 5j;i,lU0. Doran pleaded the prohibitory acl, but Ihe plaiuutls seized on some of his properly iu Missouri. The Judge decided that the couti'act had been made iu Illinois, a slate iu which Ihe Iowa statute had, of course, no jurisiliclion. The faci llial the vendors had knowledge that the vendee intended to make au unlawful use of the goods sold is not sullicieut to invalidate the sale. The fact that goods were shipped as crockery, so as to make them acceptable to the railway, may have been done by the de- fendant's instructions, and the fact that action was brought in Missouri, a state not under prohibitory law, made the jdea of such concealmeut of goods lo evade the local law of an- other state, of no force. COLLECTIONS AND RECOVERY. 39 RECOVERY— FOB GOODS SOLD TO RESIDENT OF PROHIBITION STATE. lu December, 1S89, Cbas. H. Graves' Sous, liquor deal- ers of Bostou, sued Walter B. Joliusou, of Bath, Me., for the value of certain liquors aud cordials they had sold the de- fendant, who was, at the time of such sale, proprietor of a hotel in Bath. The goods were delivered, as per agreement, at the ti'ansportation office in Boston and forwarded by the company to the defendant in Bath. The case was first tried in the Superior Court of Massachusetts in February, ISDl, and a verdict rendered for plaintiffs, which was set aside on appeal, but in a second trial Judge Hammond decided for the plaintiffs aud held: That the traveling agent of the complainant took the orders for the liquors iu the supposed knowledge that ihe iioods were intended to be sold iu violation of the laws of Maine, but that the plaintiffs personally had no knowledge, thouuht or care as to what the defendant intended to do with the goods, their sole motive and intent being to sell the iioods in Massachusetts iu the usual course of business for pecuniary profit. That the sale was made and completed in Massachusetss and the plaintiffs were entitled to judg- ment. RECOVERY— NOTE VALID IN IOWA FOR BEER BOUGHT IN MISSOURI.— Vau Viect at Pella, Iowa, was engaged in the sale of beer contrary to law. The Columbia Brewing Company brought action against him on a note given for beer. The defendant set up the plea that the note was uncollectible because the sale was illegal under the Iowa law. He also filed a counterclaim for |36,000 for money paid plaintiff for beer iu addition to the amount of the note. Judge Woolson of the United States Circuit Court ruled that the note given by the defendant in Iowa for beer purchased of plaintiff in Missouri was valid, aud further that the money paid by de- fendant for beer oi'dered by him of plaintiff' in Missouri 40 COURT DECISIONS. c((nj;lit in Kosdui ami New Vurk before the ])assage of the Wilson hiw. wilii liic intention i>t' siiiji- jiing it to New Hampshire, must be jiaid f(»r b\ tlie defend- ants. Tlie mere knowledge of the intention of defendants to bring the liquor into New Hampshire and sell it there does not make the contract invalid. Vl) Liquors delivered by the plaintiff in New York and COLLECTIONS AND RECOVERY. 41 Boston upon orders taken of the defendants in New Hamp- shire by the phiintiff's agents, who knew or had reasonable cause to believe the liquors would be broujiht there and sold in violation of law, come under tlie original package decision of Leisy vs. Uardin and must be paid for by the de- fendants, if the sales were made prior to the passage of the Wilson law in August, 1891. RECOVERY— VALUE OF ORIGINAL PACKAGES CAN BE RE- COVERED.— The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine holds that, where intoxicating liquors are bought in another state with the in- tention of selling them in Maine, in violation of law, the seller cannot maintain an action to recover the purchase l)rice in any of the courts of that state; and it is immaterial whether the seller knew of the illegal intention upon the part of the purchaser or in any way participated in the same. Where they are to be sold in the original packages, such sale not being illegal under the act of Congress of Aiig. 8, 1880, the seller may bring his action to recover as on any other debt. Knozvlton vs. Dohcrty, jj Atl. Rep. i8. RECOVERY— PARTNER^POWER TO BIND FIRM.- Where a jjartner sells hrm goods under an agreement that one-fourth of the price should be applied on a private debt owed by the partner to the purchaser, the firm cannot recover such one-fourth. Grovcr vs. Smith (Mass.), 42 N. E. Rep. 555. RECOVERY— COLLECTING OUTLAWED DEBT— IF DEBTOR AC- KNOWLEDGES IT TO THIRD PERSON.— A person alleged to be iudebtwl to another admitted to a third person that he owed a note of about fOO, which was just and due, and that he intended to pay it if ever he got well enough. Tlie Supreme Court of North Carolina held tliat this acknowledgment was not sufficiently definite to take the case out of the statute of limitations. The Court cited, with approval, the following rule: The new promise 42 COURT DECISIONS. Jiaist be (Icfiiiilc, ami show the nature and anmunt of llio debt, or must distiiKllv refer to some writiuj^, or to some other means, by wliich the amount and nature of it can be ascertained; or there must be an acknowhiljjment of a pres- ent subsistin;,' (h'bt, equally deiinite and certain, from which a jtroiiiise to pay such a ilebt may be implied. Ayain, it lias been held that I lie promise must be made to the civditor himself, or to au attorney or agent for the creditor, to repel the statute. RECOVEHY— OF MONEY LOANED FOR DRINK.— Frederick Sheidel claimed the sum of $1,525.30 as against the estate of (Jharles L. Phillips for money loaned the deceased. The money was lent Mr. I'hillips to jjratify his taste for intoxicants against the wishes of his family and in detiante of it. Judye Hawkins ruled that as the Jirooks law provided that the sale of liquor to intemperate per.sons by a saloonkeeper was a criminal ollense and the value not recoverable by law, it was obvious the law ap- plied with equal force to the man who furnished the drinks and to him who furnished the money to pay for them. There was no reason for discrimination belwein ihem. The law was applicable to and should be obeyed by all. It was an aggravation of the i>ITense that the plaiiitilT arinl in deliance of the wishes of .Mr. i'hillips' family, and under a well-kuuwu rule of law he would have no standing in a court of equity. The Judge refused Sheidel's petition to ha\ e the lase opened for a rehearing at the petitioner's cost. /''. Schcidcl vs. Estate of C. L. I'hillips, Decision by Judge Hazckins, Pittsburg, Ph., Sept., 1895. LOCAL OPTION. 43 CHAPTER II. LOCAL OPTION. LOCAL OPTION— FLORIDA— ALL STATUTES AUTHORIZING LI- CENSE SUSPENDED THEREBY.— Where there has been au election under the local option article of the Florida constitution of 1885, and legislation in pursuance thereof, with the result adverse to the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines and beer in anj- county or elec- tion district in this state during the period of the operation of the result of such election, all statutes authoi'izing or licensing the sale of such liquors, wines and beer are sus- pended. Cason Z's. State, Fla., 20 South, Rep. 5^7. LOCAL OPTION— GEORGIA— EXPRESS COMPANIES CANNOT DE- LIVER LIQUORS AT GENERAL OFFICE.— An important case involving the right of express compa- nies to deliver whisky in local option counties was tried in 3 899, at Cartersville, Ga. The case is that of the Southern Express Company, an indictment against the com- pany for delivering whisky shipped there at the office of the company, which was declared to be a public place. It is claimed that the company has no right under the law to deliver goods of this sort at its general office, but must deliver whiskies at the private residences of the cou- lees. Judge Fite directed the jury to bring in a verdict against the company, but he suspended sentence and the case will be taken before the Supreme Court. LOCAL OPTION— GEORGIA— POWER OF TOWN COUNCIL AND LEGISLATURE.— A liquor dealer named Sunden was arrested and fined by the Mayor of Oakland, Ga., for selling intoxicating 44 COURT DECISIONS. liquors witliin the town. The ordinance under wliich he was found j^uiity reads as fidlows: "Xo jierson siiall buy or keep anyspirituoiis or intoxicat- ing liquors witliin the corjtorate limits of this town with intent and ]ini|ios<' to sell tiie sanic Any ]i(M-son violating tiiis oi-tilMani'c siiali, u|>on conviction, lie tincd not less tiian $25 nor more tiian SKKI, or inijjrisoncd not more tliau liiirty days." ISunden was given llie iiniil ut the law. The town was chartered by act of the Cieueral Assembly, approved Decem- ber 12, 1894. The charter contains this section: "!{(' it further enacte\k 1'2'A, has decided that such legislation is unconstitutional. This covers the ques- tion and binds the Superior Court. ^2) Since the passage of the local option act of 1885, and while it remains in force, the legislature cannot constitu- tionally pass an act prohibiting the sale of liquors within the corporate limits of a certain town or city, and the munic- ipal authorities cannot acioinplish the same result by a pro- hibilorv ordiance. LOCAL OPTION— GEORGIA— FIVE-MILE LAW APPLIES ONLY TO SALES OUTSIDE INCORPORATED TOWNS, ETC — Triina facie a local stalnte which prohibits the sale of spirituous liquors within live miles of certain specilied churches ajiplii^s only to sales outside of the limits of incor- |)orateing a tippliuj^- bouse in localities where either the general or a special local option law is in force, as persons Avho S(>11 ]i<]uor violate that law, and if proceedetl against at all it must be under that law. IVooten vs. Cominonwealth, Superior Court, Kentucky, Decem- ber, 1893. LOCAL OPTION— KENTUCKY— EFFECT OF AMENDMENT OF CITY CHABTEB.— The Court of Appeals for Kentucky has rendered thefol- lowing opinions on "local option and repeal of statute" in the case of Tabor vs. Lander, etc., and Hayes vs. Common- wealth, being an appeal from Hancock Circuit Court: (1) Where the. general local option law had been voted into operation in a civil district of which a city formed a part, an amendment to the city charter conferring for the iirst time authority on the city council to license taverns and coffee houses, with the privilege of retailing liquors in the city, repealed the local option law so far as the city was concerned. (2) The power to license and tax in such a case must mean an exclusive power, and, therefore, the general local option law cannot again be voted into operation in the city. But, even conceding that it can be, the vote must be taken in the town alone, and not in the civil district, the amendment to the charter having at least separated the city from the civil district as a political division. LOCAL OPTION— KENTUCKY— PETITIONS FOB ELECTION.— Ky. St. § 2554, providing for local option elections on a written petition signed by voters of each precinct of the ter- ritory to be alfected equal to 25 per cent of the votes cast in each of said precincts at the last preceding general elec- tion, is complied with when separate petitions are filed from every precinct in the territ(>ry to be affected, signed by over 46 COURT DECISIONS. 25 per cent of tlie votere in sni-h prefincts, as abnve pro- vided. Svtiih vs. Patlon (Ky.), 45 S. IV. Rep. 459. LOCAL OPTION— KENTUCKY— APPLIES TO DISTILLERS' LI- CENSE.— \\\. St. > 120:1, r»'(|iiiiiiiir ten (l;i,vs' iinticc nT an applica- fioii fur a lirense to .sell spirituons liqnoi's at retail, and pro- viding that, if a majority of the legal voters in the neighbor- hood protest, the ajqdiration shall not be granted, applies to ajtjdications bv "ilistillers," llic <(militions of whose li- (enses are enumerated in seition 12()r». Commomvealth tj. Hawkins (Ky.), j.' S. IV. Rep. 409. LOCAL OPTION— KENTUCKY— REPEAL OF LAW.— Where the vote nnder the local option law was, in a cer- tain district, against the sale of liipiors, bnt while snch law was in foice the legislature amended the charter of a citv within that district, authorizing the city council to there- aftei' grant licenses for retailing lif|U(Us in the city, th*' ojjeration of the local option law, so far as concerneii the city, was repealed. Tabor vs. Lander (Ky.), zj S. \V. Rep. 1056. LOCAL OPTION— MICHIGAN— POWER OF BOARD OF SUPER- VISORS.— I'nder act 2(17, laws ISSIt. known as ilie "local oiition law," the (h-lerniination l)y the board of supervisors of the (pH'slion as lo w hellh r or not a snilicient nundter of electors of a dist rici had pe( ii ioiied for a s|iecial election I hereunder, and other preliminary (|iii'sl inns, is final, anil will mil be re- \ iewed by (he Sni>reme ( 'ouit. CoTrrt ::■(. ^fll)lsoll (MhIi). s.-f A'. 1/'. Rep. /.??. LOCAL OPTION— MICHIGAN— NOTICE, HOW PUBLISHED.— I'mler Tub. Acts ISS'.I, N]x^ration of the local option law (section 1) ap- plies only to such as sell "in compliance with the general law" and not in violation of it. Bishop vs. Hillsdale Circuit Judge (Mich.), 55 N. W. Rep. lOQ^. LOCAL OPTION— MISSISSIPPI— RECORD MUST SHOW FACTS AS TO PETITIONERS.— Under Code 1892, ch. 37, providing for an election, on petition to the supervisors, to determine whether liquors should be sold, the election is void where the supervisors' record fails to show aflfirmatively that the petitioners com- prised one-third of the qualified electors. Lester z's. Miller (Miss.), 24 South, Rep. 193. LOCAL OPTION— MISSOURI— CONSTITUTIONALITY OF.— Act April 5, ISST, known as the "Local Option Law," is not unconstitutional by reason of its failure to provide for publishing a notice of the special election within the limits of a city to be affected by the results of the vote, but which provides only for notice to be published in some paper "in the county." State vs. Dugan, Missouri. LOCAL OPTION— TENNESSEE— SIGNERS OF PETITION MAY TAKE OFF THEIR NAMES.— Citizens of Monroe County, Tennessee, got up a petition for a local option election, and, after getting the requisite nuuiber of names, filed it with the board of supervisors. Afterwards n number of the signers took off their names, 48 COURT DECISIONS. thus Icaviii;: tin- iictitiitn witiMiiit a snnicicnt iiiiiiiltcr (if sifiiKTs. Till' iiioliibitidiiisis insisted that this was coiiirary t') law anil Iimk tlic inattor into tlio cinirtK. On Mairli 7. ISJHI, tlu' Snini-nii- ('onrl lii'lil tliat tlii" siv:ni'rs liail a liiilit tn taki- ulT tlii-ir naiiu-s ami that the jii'ti- tiiin was li'fl iiisiiirn'ifiil tu ri'ipiii-i' an I'li'ition. Bucliaiian t.v. I-crguson, Supreme Court, Tenn., 1899. LOCAL OPTION— TEXAS— PETITION FOR ELECTION — Since the local optinii law |>rfsciil)es no niiuisite fur a jtetiliun fur a local ojition election, it is siillicient if it ex- ]iresses in an intelli-iible manner the ilesire of the petition- ers tiiat a local option election be helil. lUllard z's. State, Texas, jn S. U'. k\'f<. 1 106. LOCAL OPTION— TEXAS— MANDAMUS TO COMPEL COMMISSION- ERS' COURT TO ORDER ELECTION.— I'mler Kev. St. art. 3227. as amended by Acts lSy3, p. 48, pr<(\ idiii^ that (he CoiniiiissiuMers' ( "oiirt, 11 1 ion jietition of a certain iiumlicr of (|iialili<'(l \olers, shall order an eU'ction to determine whether I lie sale of iiitoxicatin^j li(|nor shall be |>rohibited, mandamus will lie at the suit of such voters to comjiel the ( "ommissioners' Court to issue the order of elec- tion, where they, without rij^ht, have refused to do .so. Kimberly vs. Morris (Te.v.), 31 S. W. Rep. 808. LOCAL OPTION— TEXAS— LEGISLATURE CANNOT IMPOSE NEW CONDITIONS WHILE IN FORCE.— Where the local oiitioii law was in luiie in ;i |irecinct, the li'j;islat iii'e could iini impose li\ an amendatory act new burdens or oblitiations uiion the people of tiiat |ireciuct pcudin};; the o|teialion of sm h local ojitiou law. Ex parte Bains. 45 S. \V. Rep. (Tex.) -'./. LOCAL OPTION— TEXAS— ORAL EVIDENCE OF CONTENTS AD- MISSIBLE IN CASE OF LOSS OF PETITIONS TO PROHIBIT SALE OF LIQUOR IN COUNTY.— Where, in a prosecution for selliu;: liipior iu violation of the local option law, it is shown that the various jieti- tions to the ("ounlv Commissioners' Court, askiii;: that au LOCAL OPTION. 49 election be held in the county to prohibit the sale of intoxi- cating liquors therein, are lost, oral evidence of the con- tents is admissible. Lrish vs. State (Tex.), S. W. Rep. djj. LOCAL OPTION— TEXAS— REQUIREMENTS OF ELECTION OR- DER.— Under a local option statute providing for the submis- sion to the people of the mere issue "For prohibition" or "Against provision," it is not necessary that the order au- thorizing the election should contain the statutory excep- tions in favor of sales for medicinal and sacramental pur- poses. Shields vs. State (Te.v.), 42 S. W. R. 3p8. LOCAL OPTION— TEXAS— PLACE OF SALE.— Where defendant, while within the limits of a local option precinct, contracted to sell and received payment for several bottles of liquor, which were to be delivered, and were actually delivered, outside of such local option limits, the contract of sate is not a violation of the local option law. Weldon vs. State (Te.v.), 36 S. W. Rep. 176. LOCAL OPTION— TEXAS— DELIVERY OF LIQUOR TO BE PAID IN KIND IS SALE.— Where defendant delivered liquor to another to be paid for in other liquor at some future time, the transaction was a sale within the law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors within a local option district. Keaton vs. State (Te.v.), 36 S. W. Rep. 440. LOCAL OPTION— TEXAS— ONE MAY KEEP LIQUOR FOR AN- OTHER.— The act making criminal the keeping of intoxicating liquors in cold storage for another in a local option district, is repugnant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing to every citizen the free use and exercise of property. Ex parte Broivn, 42 S. W. 554. 4 .-(1 COURT DECISIONS. LOCAL OPTION— TEXAS— PARTIAL EXEMPTION CONSTITU- TIONAL— KfvisiMl Siatiiti's 1M(.">, aiitliiirizin;; I he subiiiissioii uf the question "f lui ;il ojttiou to a vote, is not uneoiistitutitmal hecanse ii i-.xciiijds troiii llie niu'iiilioii of the law wine used for saciaiiieiiial ami iiiearks z's. State (Tex.), 45 S. IV. 493. LOCAL OPTION— NORTH CAROLINA— NO VESTED RIGHT AC- QUIRED BY DEALERS.— 'i'lii'i-e is no Ncslfil ri;ilil anniiictl 1>\ tiiosc eiij^ajicil in the liquor traHie wliitii incvents its beiufj; forbi(Men as pro- viiled in Laws of 1S!>7. Guy vs. Commissioners (N. C), jp S. E. JJI. ()ods of the ])Ui'i-liaser, and an- delivered to the . <)u iL'qiiL'sl, lulual or iiiiplifd, into ii lonil optiou couuty, law of latter county does not apply. Tln' actual sali' (iccuis in county from which shippeil. James vs. Commonwealth, Kentucky. PLACE OF SALE— WHERE AGENT LIVES WHEN GOODS SENT IN GROSS AND DELIVERED SEVERALLY BY AGENT.— Wlicn- an ajicnt, working; on a nmntldy .> defendant, who deliv- ered it ]>arl at a lime, receiving the money for sucli ])art as he deiivereil. Held, that if defendant ac(e()ks. ami was then (IfiivcnMJ to tiii'in in .M cuimtv, liv means of di-femlants own wat^on. Held, that defendant was not jxnilt.v of sellin. 077- PLACE OF SALE— EFFECT OF SHIPMENT C. O. D.— CARRIER AGENT OF SELLER — The Siiiireine ("onrt of N'ernionf has held that sendinj: of !i(|nors fi-oni New York to cnstcnners in \'erniont by ex- press ('. O. I), is in lejial effect a sale of that li(|Uor in the st^Tte of the buyer, tiie express company bein;; a<:ent of seller. Slalc 7's. O'Neill fl'l.). PLACE OF SALE— VENUE— INDICTMENT.— A partyresidin^iin Doddridj^e ('onnlysen(lsa]iosial card thronj:h the mail to a licensed w Imlesale li<|Uor dealer doin^ business as such in \\'ood County, direct in;: a pai-ka^e of whisky to be sent him by express ( ". (). 1). The order tlius sent liavin^ lieeii received in Wncid CnuMly. and lia\ iiii; bef'U complied with by delivcrin;; tlie packa.uf. marked "( '. (). !>.," addressed tot liepurchaser in Doddridj^e ( 'ounly, that under the iirciiinstances the sale was made in Wood County, and said wholesale merchant was not liable, under indictment in l)o(hirid>ie ( 'ounly. Slate vs. Flanagan (W. Va.). ij S. E. Rep. 792. TRANSPORTATION. 55 CHAPTEK IV. TRANSPORTATION. TRANSPORTATION— RAILWAY LIABLE ONLY FOR VALUE AS GIVEN IN BILL OF LADING.— K. B. Thomas shipped some whisky to Lcxiiij^tou over the defendant's line. In the bill of ladin^ it was stated in the plaintitT's own handwritin"- that the whisky w^as w^orth seventy-live cents per j^allon. The whisky was destroyed and Thomas sued to recover, alle<>in,n that it. was worth 14.50 per gallon. The railroad offered to settle at seventy- five cents i)er i>alh>n, the value as stated in the bill of lading, but this was refused. In passing upon the case, Judge Field of the Circuit Court said, that unless negligence on the part of the road could be shown, the defendant was liable for the whisky only as valued in the bill of lading by the plain- tiff himself. If the defendant was negligent, it Avas liable for the full value of the liquor. R. B. Thom-as vs. L. & N . Ry.. Circuit Court. Kentucky, De- cember, i8g^. TRANSPORTATION— POLICE POWERS OF STATE.— Statutes 1897, ch. 271, requiring, under penalty of for- feiture, all intoxicating liquors transported foi' delivery in towns where certain licenses have not been granteil to be transportfHl by regular carriers, in packages plainly marked Avith the kind and the amount of liquor and the name and address of the consignor and consignee, and requiring the carrierto keep a record of all liquors transported, is a proper exercise of the state's pf)lice poAvers. Coiniuouzvealth Z's. Into.vicating Liquors (Mass.), 5.' N. E. Rep. 389- TRANSPORTATION— FORFEITURE OF CONVEYANCE.— Kev. Cr. St., sections 472-474, provide that any person hauling or handling contraband liquor in the night time may 56 COURT DECISIONS. be liiiiMl (ir iiii|irisoiit'(l, ami tliat tlu' (((iivrvauti' usi'd fur surli ]»iiriM>s(' iiiav he ((inliscatcd. IIi-lil, in an artion by the owner to refovcr property s(( confiscated, tliat the fact tliat jilaiiitilT lias 1 ii acipiittcil of the criiiiinal charge of illej^al trausiiurlatioii is a iiialcrial ciminisiancc In be considered. Dobbins vs. Gaines (S. C), 29 S. E. Rep. .for. TRANSPORTATION— RAILWAY CONDUCTOR CANNOT TAKE UP MILEAGE BOOKS.— Tile Oliii) Circuit Conrt decided tiial railroads have no rijiht to cdiitiscate a mileage ln)(d< presented by a person other than the purchaser. .\ inileajie book contains a i)ro- vision to the effect that if it is presented by any other pei*son than the one whose name is signed to the printed contract the bo(d< will be taken Up and full fare cuilcctcd by the con- ductor. In the case tried at Findlay, a ticket broker who had 7>urcliased a niilea};e bo(d< and sold it to a tliii'd pei-son soujjlit to recover the value of the book which was l;iken from the person who jiresented it for itassaj^e. The Common Pleas Court had decided in favor of the railroa Common Pleas and held that the rail load coiii|)any had 110 title to tiie boU}i as Huch p(*rsonal use continues, and such ])rote(tion ceases if the 1i(ptors are fjiven to another, and in smh case the.v inimoli- Htely become subject to the pealed to t lie United States Sujucme Court, whicii held: (1) Tlie states of the Union have an undoubted right to coiilrt*! their purely internal alTairs. Imt w heiiever the law of tile state aiiiouiils esseiiliaily lo a regulation of coniiiierco w itli foieign nations, or among (lie stjites, as it does when it inliiltits, directly or indirectly, the receipt t)f an imported commodity, or its disposition, before it has <'eased to bcNonie an article of trade between one state ami another, or another country and this, it comes in coiillict witli a i)ower \\ liii li, in this jiaiiiculai', has been exclusively vested in tlie general government, and is tiierefore void. (2) Citizens of one state have the right to import tlieir ORIGINAL PACKAGES. 61 beer into another, aud the right to sell it, and until it is sold the latter state has no right to interfere by seizure, or any other action, with the goods so imported. Lcisy z'S. Hardin, 755 U. S. 100, 10 Sup. Ct., Rep. 681. ORIGINAL PACKAGE— UNITED STATES ORIGINAL PACKAGE LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL.— l\ahuer, the original package agent at Topeka, Kan., of the firm of Maynard, Hopkins & Co. of Kansas City, Mo., was arrested the day after the original package law of Con- gress went into eft'ect. He claimed that the law was uncon- stitutional. The case was appealed from the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kansas to the United States Supreme Court, which held : (1) The power of the state to impose restraints and burdens upon persons and property in promotion of public health, good order and prosperity is a power always belong- ing to the states. The power of Congress to regulate com- merce among the states, when the subjects are national in their character, is also exclusive, aud the failure of Con- gress to exercise this power iu auy case is an expression of its will that the subject shall be free. (2) Intoxicatiug liquors are subjects of commerce like any other commodity, but laws prohibiting the manufacture and sale of liquor within state limits do not necessarily in- fringe any constitutional privilege or immunity, this right being vested upon the acknowledged right of the states to control their interual affairs to protect the health, morals and safety of their people by regulations that do not inter- fere with the powers of the general government. (3) So, when Congress acted, the result of its action must be to operate as a restraint upon that perfect freedom which its silence insured. Congress has now spoken and declared that imported liquors shall upon arrival in a state fall within the category of domestic articles of a similar na- ture. And that action is constitutional. (4) The law of Congress simply removed an impediment 62 COURT DECISIONS. to llif ciifoi-cciiMiii of iln' sliitc liiws ill n'spcct to imported ]»a(k;i}jt*K in tlicir orij^iiial coiuliliou, cn-iilfd liy the absiMice of a sjK'cific iitli-raiicc on lis part. A rt'-i-iiactiiiciil of tlic staU' law is not ivtiuiivtl. Wilkerson vs. Rahrer, U. S. Supreme Court. ORIGINAL PACKAGE— TAXABLE WHEN MIXED WITH MASS OF PROPERTY IN THE STATE.— NN'lu'ii tlu' iiiipoitcr iia.s so acti^l on tin' tiling iniporttHl tliat it lias Imm-oiik* incorporate*! and niixcd ii|i with the mass of propcriA in tin- state, sncli as tlie breakiiijj; of the oi-ij^inal package, or the transfer to another peraou in the state, il has lost its distinct ive cliaracter as an im)ioi-l ami lias become subject to I lie la.xiiij; power of the state. Brown z's. Maryland, 12 Wheat., 419. ORIGINAL PACKAGE— CARRIER CANNOT REFUSE TO TRANS- PORT TO PROHIBITION STATE.— The ]io\\ el- to rei;iilale or forbid (he sale of a commodity after it has been broujihl into the state does not carry with it tlie right and power to jjrevent its trausportation from anotlier state. Therefore a carrier cannot refuse to carry liquor consigned to a point in a state, allejiin^ as an excuse the pndiibitory law of such state. Bosnian vs. C. S- N. II'. R. R.. u^ U. S.. 465. 1890. ORIGINAL PACKAGE— DEFINITION.— The I'liitetl States Circuit Coiirl lias decided tli;it an original package within the meaiiiii'i of the law of iiiierstate commei-ce is the packa;ie delivered by the ini|ioi1i'r to the carrier at llie initial i)oiiil of slii|imeiit, in the exact condi- tion in which it was shiiiiied. In tlie case of liipiors in itottles. if the bottles are shipped siii;;ly, each is an ori^nnal paika;:e, but if a iinmber are fastened toj;etlier and marked, oi- iii-c jtacked in a box, barrel, crale or other recejitade, such Imniile, box, baiiil, dale oi- icccptai b- constitutes the original |iackagi-. Ciuckcuhciiiicr vs. Sellers. Si Fed. Q07. ORIGINAL PACKAGES. (53 ORIGINAL PACKAGE— BOTTLES ARE NOT.— Where liquor is sliipped from anotlier state in bottles separately wrapped in tissue paper, labeled "original pack- age," and plaeed in an uucovered box, with hay laid between the bottles so M-rapped to keep them from breaking, the fact that the box is not covered does not make the bottles origi- nal packages. The box in which they are thus shipped is the original package. Rion vs. The State, Alabama. ORIGINAL PACKAGES— BOTTLES ARE.— When a nonresident delivered bottles of liquor to a carrier, each separately wrapped and labeled, and the car- rier without the knowledge of consignor put such bottles into boxes, and thus transported them into Alabama, the bottles, and not the boxes, are "original packages." Tinker vs. State, Alabama, ii South. Rep. 5^5. ORIGINAL PACKAGES— WHAT CONSTITUTES.— The defendant was the keeper of what was known as an "original package house," at Spencer, iu Clay County, Iowa. lie was not the owner of the packages of liquor which he kept for sale. He was the agent of certain parties in Milwaukee, Wis. These parties were lessees of the build- ing, and the same was occupied by the defendant as their agent. Thej' shipped the liquoi's kept for sale in said building from Milwaukee to Spencer, loAva, consigned to themselves; and the defendant received them as their agent of said Milwaukee parties. The beer which was kept for sale was put up iu bottles at Milwaukee, and sealed and la- beled, and for convenience of shipment were placed in open frame boxes with 24 separate compartments. The whisky was in bottles, sealed and labeled, which bottles were, for convenience of shipment, ])acked iu barrels. The defendant removed the bottles from the boxes and barrels, and sold them as they were sealed, and ])urchasers were not jtermitted to open the bottles and u.se the licjuors upon the premises. The Supreme Court on appeal held this was 64 COURT DECISIONS. stri< ily an (iriginal packajie establishment, and was author- ized by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United Stat.'s in Lcisy vs. Hardin, 135 U. S., 100, 10 Snp. (^, Kep., fiSl. Tiiat the separate bottles were orij^lnal paika;;t's — tliat in the form in wliich they were put up by the shipper for sail' — there can be no iloubt. At least such lias been the holdin}i of tills court. Collins vs. llilLs, 77 Iowa, ISl, 41 N. W. Ivep., r>71. And see, also, in re lieine, 42 Fetl. Kep., 545. It is proper to observe that the case at bar was iieard and deterniine ta.\ on the busine.ss of selling. Ii.r parte Seube, Cal., $/ Pac. Rep. 596. LICENSE. 67 LICENSE— CALIFORNIA— BOARD HAS ARBITRARY POWER TO REFUSE LICENSE.— ^ lu 1890 the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of P. Crowley, chief of police of San Francisco, vs. Henry Christensen, appellee, decided that the Board of Po- lice Commissioners of San Francisco had arbitrary power to grant or refuse liquor licenses, and reversed the order of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of California, discharging the prisoner, Christensen, who was charged with selling liquor without license, and remanded the cause with directions to take further proceedings in conformity with the opinion. LICENSE— CALIFORNIA— FEMALE WAITRESSES.— An ordinance providing that licenses to sell liquor shall not be granted to persons who have employed females as waitresses is not unconstitutional as being an vx post facto law, since it is not a criminal law. Foster vs. Board of Police Coiiirs. of City and County of San Francisco, Cal., j/ Pac. Rep. j6^. LICENSE— COLORADO— POWER OF TOWN COUNCIL.— Mills' Ann. St., § 4403, subd. IS, gives to an incorporated town the exclusive right to license or prohibit the sale of liquor within one mile beyond its boundaries. Mills' Ann. St., ch. 76, gives a general aiithority to the boards of county commissioners to grant license for the sale of liquor: Held, that the fact that a county license was issued to one selling liquor witliiu a mile of incorporated towns did not exempt him from the operation of an ordinance of the town there- after passed, requiring a license to be paid by those selling liquor witkin that distance of the town. People vs. Raiins, Colo., jp Pac. Rep. 341. LICENSE— CONNECTICUT— SALE WITHOUT LICENSE, AND KEEP- ING LIQUORS WITH INTENT TO SELL WITHOUT LICENSE.— The offense of selling liquors without a license and of keeping such liquors with intent to sell without a license G8 COURT DECISIONS. are distiint oHVuscs, auy sherilf's sale, but transfemnl license to his wife before sale. Judge Spruance held that license was included in sheriff's sale, and w ife of saloonkeei»er did not seem to be the sort of occupant or incoming; tenant as contemplated by law. LICENSE— FLORIDA— NOT TO ISSUE WHERE PERMIT IS GRANTED ON ILLEGAL PETITION.— A permit granted by the board of county commissioners to sell liquors, wines or beer in an election district, on a petition signed by less than a majority of the registered vot- ers of said district, as shown by the registration list on tile at the date of application, is void, and a tax collector will not be conijielled by iniuHldntits to issue a lii-ense to an applicant ou such permit. State IS. D'Alemberte, Florida, 11 South. Rep. 903. LICENSE— FLORIDA— MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE VOID FOR ARBI- TRARY DISCRIMINATION.— An ordinance of a municipal ciu-poiatiitu that no license for the sale of malt or alcoholic drinks shall be used within 450 feet of any school or established church at the time said license was granted, without the consent of the council of saifl muni( ipal body, is void in this: That it permits of an arbitrary disi limination by said council as to personal lit- nesH to engage in the business of lei ailing— a matter ex- clusively umler statutory regulation. E.v parte Thcisci:. FloriJj. 11 South. Rep. 901. , LICENSE. 69 LICENSE— GEORGIA— WITHIN POLICE POWER AND REVOCABLE AT ANY TIME BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.— Inasmnrh as a license to sell spirituous liquors is neither a contract nor a property right in the license, but a mere permit to do what would otherwise be an offense ajjainst the general law, it is, when granted by .1 municipal corporation, subject at all times to the police powers of that corporation; and the latter, in the absence of any charter restrictions upon its authority in this respect may, in the exercise of those powers, revoke the license at any time. Ison vs. Mayor, etc., of Griffin, Ga., 25 S. E. Rep. 611. LICENSE — ILLINOIS — CANNOT REQUIRE MAJORITY OF LEGAL VOTERS TO LICENSE PETITION IN CERTAIN DIS- TRICT.— An ordinance providing that in a certain district no dramshops license shall be granted unless the applicant shall procure a petition signed by a majority of the legal voters of that district is invalid, as tending to make dis- criminations and monopolies. People vs. Swift, 60 III. App. Ct., Rep. 395. LICENSE— ILLINOIS— MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS MAY LI- CENSE SALE OF LIQUOR IN ONE PART AND PROHIBIT IN ANOTHER.— Under Rev. vSt. 111., ch. 21, art. 5, § 1, subd. 46, which empowers the president and board of trustees of villages "to license, regulate and prohibit" the sale of intoxicating liquors, they may by ordinance provide for the issuing of licenses in one part of the village, and prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor in another part of the village. People I's. Mayor Cregicr, of Chicago, Illinois. LICENSE— ILLINOIS— POWER OF CITY COUNCIL.— A city ordinance prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquors in quantities of one gallon or more, without first obtaining a license, and providing a penalty for its violation, is within the poAvers conferi-ed by Itev. St. ill., ch. 24, upon 70 COURT DECISIONS. till- citv couiuil "lo liri'usi', ivj;iilate aud prohibit ibf selling or giving away" of such liciuors. Miller vs. Amnion, U. S. C. C, is S. C. Rep. 8S4. LICENSE— ILLINOIS— SPECIAL ORDINANCE OF CAIRO VOID.— In 1S!».'? an ordinance was [lasscd by tbc city ((Hiniil of Cairo, III., wliicli ]»rovidcd that all li]>licant, and without his knowledge, violat«»s the law, this fact alone would not dei)rive the applicant of his right to a license. I'ciU-y vs. Il'iils, lint.. 41 N. E. Rep. 355. . LICENSE. 71 LICENSE— INDIANA— BOND— EVEN IF INVALID, IF ACCEPTED IN GOOD FAITH, SALES UNDER IT NOT CRIMINAL.— "Where a bond given on the grant of a license to sell liquor was executed and accepted in good faith, and all other requirements of the statute were complied with by the applicant, sales made under the license granted would not constitute a criminal offense and establish unfitness to be intrusted with the license, though the bond proved in- valid for want of the prini-ipal's name. North z's. Barringer, hid.. 46 N. E. Rep. 5^1. LICENSE— INDIANA— WOMAN CANNOT HOLD LICENSE.— Anna C. Hamilton was the owner of a saloon at Colum- bus, though she resided in Jackson County, and was sued to collect a bill for liquors sold the manager of the saloon for her benefit, and which she refused to pay. There was an agreed statement of the facts. In the trial court it was held that a woman could not hold a saloon license and could not contract a valid debt in that business. The plaintiffs appealed and the Supreme Court sustained the decision of the court below. JVoodford z'S. Hamilton, Suprcuie Court Indiana, i8p4. LICENSE— INDIANA— MAY BE REVOKED AT ANY TIME.— The Supreme Court of Indiana has decided that a munici- pality may prescribe the limits within which liquors shall be sold. The town of Muncie passed an ordinance estab- lishing certain restrictions as to where license might and might not be used. John Shea undertook to break down the ordinance, and brought the case to the Supreme Court. The Court declared that a liquor license is merely a permit which may be revoked at any time when the public good requires it, and that the power to regulate the liquor traffic is a part of the police right of the city, which cannot be sur- rendered by any contract which the city may make. LICENSE— INDIANA— MUST NOT ASSUME THAT ILLEGALITY WILL TAKE PLACE.— The fact that the granting of a license to retail liquors iu a certain room would violate Acts 1895, p. 250, sec. 4, pro- 72 COURT DECISIOXS. vidiii^ that tln' loom sliall be so arranged that all i>arts of it can be seen ffoin the street or hl<,'hway, and inijuisinf: penalties for its vi(dation, is not a gronnd for refusal to grant siicli license. Gates -:■!. Hau\. Ind. so .V. P.. Rep., jqq. LICENSE— INDIANA— NOT A CONTRACT.— The Supreme Coni-t of Indiana, in the ease of the State vs. Gebhardt, holds iliat a license to enfjajre in the liquor traffic is not a contract or ^rant, bnt a mere ]>ermit. at all times within the contr issued by tlie board of commissioners and such license cannot be issued (n two or more persons as partners. After reviewinp: the statutes on the stibject the Supreme Tourt of Tmliana concludes that, as two or more ])ersous are inhibited from obtaining a license jointly as partners, they cannot eii^ajxe as jiartners in retailinj^ intoxicating liciuors under the law, and one jterson cannot ite held liable as the silent partner of another for liquor ptirclia.seli. S<^J. LICENSE— MISSISSIPPI— REQUIRED FOR EACH BAR.— A retail iicjuor dealer (twned two biiildiujis, with sep- arate entrances on two streets, with a partition wall at the rear of them, and in each building maintained a barroom, comidete in its a|tiM)intiiients and attendants, and in no way connected with each other, except that a doorway had biM'U cut through the partition wall : Held, that the dealer main- tained two separate and distinct places of business, within the meaning of the law relating to intoxicating liquors. Adotns vs. I'raigicomo, Miss., 13 South. Kep. ^fiJ. LICENSE— MISSOURI— STATE AND CITY LICENSES REQUIRED IN CITIES OF OVER 200,000 INHABITANTS.— Under Acts 18!»;{, p. 14!(, creating the ollice of excise commissioner in cities of over 200,(1(10 iidiabitants, giving him exclusive jiower to grant drauislio]i licenses, and re- quiring payment to him of s;{.00 fee for granting each li- cense, a dramsho|t keeper in such city must obtain from him two licenses — one from the state, the other from the city, as tiieretofore nMpiired by acts 1891, p. 12S, and by the city ordinances- ami for «>a« h license the commissioner is entitled to his fee. State 7s. Bell, .Mo., 24 S. W. Rep. 765. LICENSE— MISSOURI— SALE WITHOUT LICENSE.— W liere a statute authorizes a city to collect a license tax on liipior sellers, the power to punish tliem for selling witiioul a license is im|died. City of H'lirrensburg 7-s. Mel I ugh. Mo., jj- S. IT. Rep. 5.?^. LICENSE. 79 LICENSE— NEBRASKA— VOID IF ISSUED ON CREDIT.— The couut^^, city aud village boards of tliis state have uo authority to issue liquor license on credit, aud a license issued without payment in full of the fee prescribed there- for is void. Zielke vs. State, Neb., 53 N. IV. Rep. loio. LICENSE— NEBRASKA— PHYSICIANS AND DRUGGISTS WITH PERMITS EXCEPTED FROM LICENSE LAW.— Uuder the act amendatory aud supplemental of chapter 50 of the compiled statutes of 1885, entitled "Liquors," it is unlawful for any person to keep for the purpose of sale, without license, any malt, spirituous, or vinous liquors. Phy- sicians or druggists having permits for the sale of liquors for medicinal, mechanical, chemical or sacramental pur- poses are excepted from the operation of the act. State vs. Cloyd, Nebraska, 52 N. W. Rep. 579. LICENSE— NEBRASKA— NOTICE IN NEWSPAPER OF APPLICA- TION.— ^s'otice of an application for a license to sell intoxicating liquors must be published at least two weeks in a news- paper published in the county, having the largest circula- tion therein, before any action can be taken on the applica- tion. When the notice is inserted in a daily paper, it must be published in it daily for the statutory period. Rosewatcr vs. Pinzensham, Neb., 57 N. W. Rep. 563. LICENSE— NEBRASKA— RIGHTS OF REMONSTRANTS AGAINST LICENSE.— Where several persons join in a remonstrance and ob- jection to the granting of license to an applicant to sell liquors, it is the duty of the board to which the application is addressed to set a time for the hearing thereof, allowing the objectors a reasonable opportunity to procure the evi- dence upon wliich they rely to defeat the application. State vs. Coleman, Nebraska. 80 COURT DECISIONS. LICENSE— NEBRASKA— MANDAMUS.— A Unaitl ii|)iiii \\lii( li is imposed the duty of heariiifj aud dctiTiiiiiiiii^ applii iilions for liceuses to sell li(|iiors will he eom]telled. In iiiaudannis, to eonveue, and revoke a 11- ( eiisc ;ii-aiit«'(l. w lifif tiic fssciidal i»ro((MMliii;;s rt'(|iiisitf lo the granting of a lawful Ikense have not heeu complied with. Stale vs. Johnson, Neb., 55 N. IV. Rep. 874. LICENSE— NEBRASKA— SCHOOL DISTRICTS.— Moneys aiisini; frnm a lireuKe granted liy a village for the sale of into.xicaling Jiipiors belong to the school district in which such village is located, and must be ajJitlied to the supi)ort of the common schools in said district. Guthrie vs. Hester, Neb., 66 N. W. Rep. 853. LICENSE— NEBRASKA— LICENSEE ENTITLED TO REPAYMENT FOR UNEXPIRED TIME WHEN LICENSE IS CANCELLED.— It is the .settled law of this state, where a litpior license has been issued by a city council, and on appeal such license is canceled, that the licensee is entitled to a repayment /'/« tuiilu of the sum paid for the same, for the unexpired time. Chamberlain vs. City of Tecumseh, Neb., 61 N. W. Rep. 6^2. LICENSE— NEBRASKA— NOTICE OF APPLICATION.— Where the matter publishef a liiciisc the niort- fia;i«'e has a lien on it. and is entitled to the proceeds of its sale because of the privilej;c of renewal it inherits. LICENSE— NEW YORK— TO SELL WITHIN PROHIBITED DIS- TANCE OF CHURCH OR SCHOOL.— Laws 1S!I2, eh. 401, as amended l»y laws IS'Xi, ch. 4S(I. S 43, provide that, no |ieison who shall not nave been licensi'd piiiir to the passa;;e of this ad shall hereafter be licen.sed to sell liipiors in any building for which a license does not e.\ist at the lime of the jia.ssajie of the act which .shall be within a certain distance of a church or xhoid btiildin;;: Held, that a pi-rsoii was mil entitled to be li- censed to sell li<|Uor in a bnildin;: within the prohibited dis- tance because at the lime of Hie passaj;e of the act he was lieeii.sed to sell li(|uors in another part of vhe city. Pcol>lc vs. Miirriiy. A. ) .. ./.' .V. E. Rep. yS^f. LICENSE— OHIO— RIGHT UNDER OHIO DOW LAW TO STORE STOCK IN COOLER — < >ne who Irallics in spirituous, \inoiis, malt or intoxi- calin;; li<|nors. at a regular place of business, and pass the assessment of .^'J.")!! therefor, as retpiired by seition S0'X2, snbd. S. i;c\. St.. known as llie "now l.aw," has tin- ri^ht to store all or a p.-iil of his lii|iiiii's in a cnolcr or biiildiii;^ separate ami apart from his re;;nlar place of business, w it h out pa.\ in;; a second assessiiieiil on accoiini of such cooh-r or biiildin;.;. |iro\ ided no |iurcliases or sales of such liipiors be made at such building; or cooler. Hanson x-s. Luce, Ohio, j./ .\'. E. Rep. .7^5. LICENSE. S3 LICENSE— OKLAHOMA— MALT LIQUOR SALE ILLEGAL IN OK- LAHOMA.— riulei'theorjianif act, ])r()vidiiifi' that Laws Xeb., cli. 50, eutitlod "Liquors," shall be in force iu the territory, but uo license shall be issued thereunder, taken in connection with said chapter oO, which makes it a misdemeanor to sell malt liquors without a license, the sale of such licjnors is illej;al. KcUy IS. Court er, Oklalioma, jfo Pac. Rep. ^J2. LICENSE— PENNSYLVANIA— DEALER NOT BOUND BY ORAL AGREEMENT.— Tile Supreme Court of the state of Pennsylvania has decided a case bearing upon the practice of the local licens- ing courts in the matter of making ])rivate agreements with liqum- dealers. According to the ruling of the Supreme < 'ourt, a liquor dealer who obtains a license from the licens- ing court and pledges himself to certain conditions in order to obtain it is not bound by such an agreement, the licens- ing courts not being authorized to make such contracts. The case was one in which a dealer obtained a license upon the understanding that he would not be au applicant for a license iu the following .\ear. The dealer repudiated his promise, and the Supreme Court sustains his action. LICENSE— PENNSYLVANIA— BREWER CAN PAY SALOON LI- CENSE OF A PHILADELPHIA SALOONKEEPER.— A saloonkeei)er borrowed $3,000 from a bi'ewing com- pany at the time his license was granted and gave a judg- ment note for the amount. Judgment Avas entered upon the note, and the saloonkeeper then took a rule to have it set aside on the ground that he did not owe that sum, part of the moiu'y having been used in the purchase of the license.' Judge Gordon su.stained the plea, deciding that it was against the law for an outside party to have an interest in a saloonkeeper's license, and that no recovery could be made on a debt secured in this manner. The Sujjreme Court com- ]>lelely reversing this ruling, and decided that there was nothing in the saloonkeeper's representations on which col- lection of the judgment could be defeated. Gcniiantoi^ii Brewing Co. vs. Booth, Sup. Court Pa., July, 1894. 84 COURT DECISIONS. LICENSE— PENNSYLVANIA— MAY BE REFUSED ARBITRARILY. A li(ons«' niiiv lie refused w it limit iissi<;niiip anv reason thei'eftir if it aiijieiir tliat siicli decision is tlie result of eon- sideialion. In re Spcrriiij;, j Pa. Sufre\vinji companies are not permitted to take ont a license to sidl litpior at retail. />/ re Consumers' Brewing Co.'s Licenses. 7 Pa. Dist. R. lo^t. LICENSE— TEXAS— CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW — The Texas law, requirin*: an apjdicant for lirivile;ies ami immunities of citizens shall not be abridfie4'.l, idovidinj; that a litpior license sliall not b<' issned till tin- license fee is paid, docs not re- quire that the fee shall ac<(inii»an.v tlie ai»|ili(aiioii, one who. on ajtplvinji for a license, jtavs a portioji of the fee and o|»ens his saloon, cannot, on a license beinji denied and his saloon closed because of his failnre to pav the balance, re- eover the ainonnt paid. Hague vs. City of Ashland. Wis.. 05 .V. II'. Rep. 508. LICENSE— WISCONSIN— BREWERS AGENT— MUST BE LICENSED TO SELL IN TOWNS OTHER THAN WHERE BREWERY IS LO- CATED.- Indcr (Jen. Laws lSSr>, ch. I'lMI, providinj,' that, if any person sells any into.xicatiii}; liipior in any i|nanlily without lirst ha\ in;; obtained a license therefor, Ik is guilty of a mis- demeanor. The a^ent of a brewing company who stdls beer \\itlionl a license to a dealer in a town other tluin the one in whiili such comi»any's brewery is loialed is ;;nilty of Kiuh olTeuse. Mayer 'c's State. Wisconsin. 3? .V. W. Rep. .f.f.f. LICENSE— WYOMING-POWER OF CITY.— .\ city ordinance provided that, u|ion application for a license to sell inlo.xicat ill;; liijiiors, and compliance with certain re(|iiirenient.s, such license should be issued, and that all licenses should b(> subject to the ordinances and re;;iilalions in force at the lime of the issuiii;: thereof. Wev. St., jj Kil, invested the city with power to enact ordinances to * I MUNICIPAL POWER. 87 ^'k'\\ and collect taxes on saloons, li(]nor sellers, and regu- late the same by ordinances." Held, that the city had the light to prescribe the locality in wiiicli such business should be |ierniitteil. .S7a/i' I'.s-. City Council of City of Cheyenne, IVyo., 5^' Pac. Rep. 975- LICENSE— WYOMING— DISCB.ETION AS TO ISSUING.— Discretion as to issuing licenses tor the sale of intoxi- cating liquors within certain limits is held to be properly granted to the council by an oi'dinance, where there is char- ter authority to enact ordinances taxing and regulating that business. But it is held that such discretion must be reasonably exercised. State of Wyoming, Noble vs. Cheyenne, 40 L. R. A. Jio. CHAPTEK VIII. MUNICIPAL POWER. MUNICIPAL POWER.— COUNTY SUPERVISORS HAVE NO POWER OVER CORPORATE TOWNS.— Koach, a saloonkeeper of Hanford, was arrested for vidlatiug an order of the county supervisors, which pro- Inbits the sale of intoxicants between 10 p. m. and 5 a. m. lioacli's attorney contended that since he held a license gi'anted by the corporation of the town of Hanford, the tTder of the supervisors must be inoperative. In other words, the contention Avas that the supervisors have no ])olice power withiu the limits of an incorporated town or city, and the Supreme Court upholds this contention. By section 11, article XI of the constitution, equal power is given both town and county governments, and it is held 88 COURT DECISIONS. Ili:it iiiic may nut < oiillirl w itli the other in matters of police lefiiilations. Santa Clara Su( 1^. |{. A., ~^'^A, ()vciiiiliii^lli('liii after his arrival in the state, such licpior is "contraliand," within Dispensary Act, March 0, IWltJ, ii SI, jtrovidiiig that "any person handling contraband liquors in the night time or delivering the same shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." State Z's. llollcyman, S. Car., ji S. li. Rep. 362. STATE DISPENSARY— MONOPOLIES.— The act of July -, JMKI, to proti'd. lrad<' and conuiierce against unlawful restraints and Mionoi)olies, is not ap- plicable to the case of a sUite which, by its laws, assumes an entire moufijioly of the trallic in intoxicating liipiors (Act S. C, Jan. U, 1S!(.">). A st^ite is neither a "person" nor a "cor- poration," within the meaning of the act of (Vjngress. Lowensteiti vs. Evans, U. S. C. C. (S. Car.), 69 Fed. Rep. 908. STATE DISPENSARY— CANNOT OVERRIDE INTERSTATE COM- MERCE.— The South Carolina dispensary act, appioved 1 (ecem- ber 24, 1S92, (section '27>), providing I hat into.xicating "liquor intended for unlawful sale in this stiile may be seiztnl in transit and proceeded against as if it were unlawfully kept and de|»osit<-d in any place," does not authorize a constable to seize without warrant a package of liipior shipped from without the state, ami storeiver appoinleil by a I'nited States conn, ami i;epi ilierein witlnuit concealment. Bound Z'S. Sotilli Ciiroliiiii k'y. Co.. V. S. C C. (S. Car.). ^7 Fed. Rep. 485. MALT LIQUORS AND BREWERS. 93 STATE DISPENSAKY— CONSTITUTIONAL AS POLICE REGULA- - TION.— A state law prohibiting tlie sale of liquors by others, though, by authorizing and providing for the establishment of dispensaries for their sale by agents of the state, it recog- nizes such liquors as the subject of legitimate commerce, is a regulation of their sale, which is a proper exercise of the police pow'ers of the state. Vance vs. Vandercook, U. S. Sup. Ct., i8p8. DISPENSARY LAW DOES NOT REPEAL OTHER LAWS.— The South Carolina dispensary laws do not repeal by implication prior laws forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors in varioiis localities in the state. Bailey Liquor Co. vs. Austin, Sj Fed. 785. CHAPTEK X. MALT LIQU0R8 AND BREWERS. BREWERS MUST PAY WAREHOUSE TAX IN OHIO.— The (luestiou of brewers paying the Dow liquor tax for warehouses was decided bj^ the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of the Jung Brewing Company, of Cincinnati, against Geo. A. Talbott, treasurer of Champaign County, as follows: A manufacturer of intoxicating drinks who carried on the business of selling them elsewhere than at the manu- factory, is engaged in the traffic within the purview of sec- tion 4364-9, of the revised statutes, and subject to the tax thereby imposed. It is not essential to a valid imposition of the tax that the traffic be carried on in a building or structure, or fixed n4 COURT DECISIONS. liliiic of ItUHincss. Scllinu :iii(l ili-livciiiii; tin- lii|ii(iis In riisttiiiiiTs from a vcliidc itnixidcd for tliat imritosc is a iii(>tli\ liie sale and tie- liverv fiom wagons as a sejiaiale and independent linsiness, ami the li(Hiois ai:e snjijilied from a stofehonse where they ai-e kept on iiiind for sale in that manner, in chai';;e of a local aj;enl, the stofehonse may j)foi)eily lie re;;afded as liie seller's place of bnsiness. Hanson 7'\. Luce, and Monaglian X'S. Luce, ^o ()/iii-eme ( 'onri of I'cnnsv l\ ania ludds. in ilie case of the IMin-nix I)ie\vini;('onii»any vs. Iviimliafiier, .Ma.\ 17, 1S!)7, that the sec.nid .section of the Act of April 14. ISC:?, reipiiiinji Hk- luandin^ of barrels and casks in which li<|nor8 are s(dd, ami the ;iivin;; of a certilicale to the purchaser, does not prohibit Ihe prosecntion of the bnsiness w Ikmi its provisions are not crs" kept for sale in vinlatictn of law iiia.v be seized and foi-feited. State IS. Lager Beer (N. H.). 39 .-111. K. .'55- BEER— SALICYLIC ACID IN BEER PROHIBITED IN OHIO — In ISitT till' Supienie <"<>iii-t of (Hiio (iecided tliat it is an (dTense aj^aiiist the imic fond laws of that state ly w liich I he buver aj;rees to keep for sale no beer except thai I'lirnislied liy llic seller, and file seller a;:rees to sell to mi other persons at a ciMlaiu l<»\\ 11, is wilhin Savles" .\nn. <"iv. St. IS'.IT, arl. .■»;{!:{, avoidinj: cunl rails to restrain trade, or preveni ccmiiieiiiinn in the sale of com- modities. Te.vas Hre7>.-ijig Co. 7'j. Diirriini, Te.v., 40 S. li'. Rep. 880. DRUGGISTS. 97 CHAPTEK XL DRUGGISTS. DRUGGISTS— PATENT MEDICINE OR DISTILLED SPIRITS.— The term "domestic distilled spirits," as used in the law requiring retail liquor dealers to pay a special tax to the United States before engaging in the business, does not include patent or proprietary medicines, manufactured and sold, in good faith, for curative or health-imparting prop- erties, although they may contain a large percentage of dis- tilled spirits as one of their essential ingredients; nor does the fact that men with strong appetites for drink occasion- ally buy such preparations and by the use of them become drunk, furnish any adequate reason for classifying them as distilled spirits. The law, however, is not to be evaded by mere deceptive names, and if alcoholic beverages in which the essential ingredient is distilled spirits, disguised by aromatic or other drugs, are commonly bought and sold as and for intoxicating beverages, the same ai-e not to be classed as patent or proprietary meilicines, by whatever names they may be known, and the seller thereof is liable to the tax as a retail liquor dealer. United States vs. IVilson, U. S. Dist. Court for Missouri. DRUGGISTS— SALE OF MALT TONICS.— Dioiggists ai'e subject to the regulations of retail liquor dealers if a compound is intoxicating and is sold as a bever- age, notwithstanding the fact that the compound may be used as a medicine and was so intended by the manu- facturer. Internal Rcveyme Circular No. 340. iSp^. SAMPLE BOTTLES DO NOT REQUIRE STAMPS.— A medicinal proprietary article or preparation which is not made for sale nor sold, or removed from the place of manufacture for sale, is not subject to the stamp tax. Hence 7 as COURT DECISIONS. a UM'ic saiii|>k' Ifux of a inoiiriftaiv iiiotlicine or preparation, put up ami labi'li'tl, "For free distributiou." whiih is actuall.v {iiven away by the owner or proprietor, does not require a war revenue stamp. Opiiiwn of U. S. Attorney Central. DRUGGISTS— COLORADO— SATE FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES — A provision that an ortlinante I'oibidilin;; (lie sale of liquor without a lieense sliall not ajtply to sales by drnp;- pists "upon the prescription of a reputabh' pliysician an. JiS. DRUGGISTS— INDIANA— DRUG CLERK CAN ONLY SELL ON PROPER PRESCRIPTION.— The Appellate Court of Indiana held in the case of Albert II. Caldwell af^ainst the state, that a druj; clerk is not justified in lillin'r, on Sunday, a written prescripiioii si^^ned by a jiliysician, width reads (as translated into English): "It. Whisky; one (|uart, for medicinal use." C«ld well, who keeps a dru<; store in .Martinsville, was arreste had only tilled the prescri|»- tion of a jjracticiu};: jiliysician. which he olTeicd (o prove was in the ordinary form used by (he medical |>iofcssion. and was \vor nofitr IVinnitt with Coiisl., art, 2, J ^-'^ providing that no person shall bo n-fjuirHl to fdrnish evidence in a (Tiriiiiial case aerale habits, ccmiplying witli the reqnirementH of section fi of chapter .'{2 of the Code. Slate -vs. LUuefield Drug Co. (If. Wa.), 27 S. E. Rep. 350. CIVIL DAMAGES. 103 CHAPTER XII. CIVIL DAMAGES. CIVIL DAMAGES— LIABILITY FOB MONEY STOLEN.— A saloonkeeper is not liable for money taken from one while intoxicated on liquor sold to him in his saloon, under Sand. & II. Dig. g 4870, requiring him to give a bond con- ditioned to pay "all damages that may be occasioned by rea- son of liquor sold" at the saloon; the liquor not being the proximate cause of such loss. Gage i's. Harvey (Ark.), 48 S. W. Rep. S9S. CIVIL DAMAGES— MEASURE OF DAMAGES.— A wife may be injured in her means of support where her husband's ability to furnish her with the comforts of life is lessened or destroyed, although she may not be de- prived of the bare necessaries of life. Moloney vs. Dailcy (III.), 6-j III. App. 437. CIVIL DAMAGES— WHO ABE LIABLE.— When damages for injuries caused by the sale of intoxi- cating liquors are sought to be recovered under the dram- shop act, all tliose who have furnished liquors which con- tributed to create, or to strengthen, or to keep up the habit of drunkenness are liable, both severally and jointly. Keller vs. Lincoln (III), 67 111. App. 404. CIVIL DAMAGES— PBOPER TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT DE- FENDANT BEFUSED TO SELL TO HUSBAND WHEN DBUNK.— In an action for damages, for the sale of liquor to plain- tiff's husband, where it is admitted that defendant, contrary to plaintiff's repeated request and warnings, sold to plain- tiff's husband the liquor which made him drunk, and ren- dered him unable to work, it is proper to exclude evidence that defendant refused to sell him liquor when actually drunk. IVolfe vs. Johnson (III.), 3S N. E. Rep. 886. 1(11 COURT DECISIONS. CIVIL DAMAGES— INSTRUCTION TO JURY.— It is propel- to iiislnicl tlic jiirv to tlic effect tliat in osti- matiiif,' jiliiinl ill's (liiiiiaj;es tliey may coiisidi-r not only the earniii<;s of (Icccilcnt for any }iiven period, lint also the prob- able lenj^th of his life till terniinattHl by natural causes. Betting vs. Hobbctt, Illinois. CIVIL DAMAGES— CHILDREN AND WIFE MAY SUE JOINTLY OR SEPARATELY.— Where the efl'ect of seilinji litpior t(( a man is to deprive of support his wife and infant children, who reside togetlier and depend on him for support, they may jointly sue the liquor seller; tiioufjh each has a separate right of action. Hclmclh 7's. Bell (HI.), 57 .V. E. Rep. 330. CIVIL DAMAGES— MAY SHOW PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEATH.— A comjilaint allegiu^r that defemlant unlawfully sold intoxicating li(]uors to plaintifT's minor chiUl, and suffered him to drink the same until he becami- intoxi(ate. 797. CIVIL DAMAGES— SALOONKEEPER IN INDIANA IS RESPONSI- BLE FOR SELLING LIQUOR TO YOUTH — A saloonkeejier in Indiana is held to be responsible for selling lif]in)r to a youth, who is killed while uiitler its inthi- ence, althougii liciuor was sold by bartender. The Court held further that it is not necessan- that the father in |)lead- ing loss of stijtpoit 1)_\ (liMi ji uf s/>. Cl., Iiidiaihi. (leeisiott, iSp6. CIVIL DAMAGES— FATHER MAY RECOVER FOR DEATH OF MINOR SON.— The Imliaiia Supreme Court has handed down a deci- sion establishing a prece, forlddding the sale of li(|uor to a husband after "notice" by tiic wife "in writing, signed by licr," where the notice given bore the wife's name, but signed by another jierson at licr re(iuest and in her presence, slie knowing the contents and objects of such notice, it was sullicient. Finnegan vs. Lucy (Mass.), jj N. E. AV/>. 656. CIVIL DAMAGES— EVIDENCE OF CONVICTION FOR DRUNKEN- NESS ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW DAMAGES.— In an action by a wife for damages for sale of li(|ii((r to her Inisband, evidence of his conviction for drunkenness caused by the liipmr is admissible, not to |mo\(' tiie diiink- enness, but to show damages. Luckcr vs. Liskc (Mich.), 70 N. IV. A'l/'. ./.'/. CIVIL DAMAGES— PRINCIPAL AND SURETIES ON DIFFERENT BONDS MAY BE JOINED IN A SINGLE ACTION — I'nder ."> How. Ann. St., >; Ul'SIte,'?, making "any iier.son or persons," and, if licensed liquor dealers, the sureties on their bonds, wJHt l)ave furnished li(|uors (o a ]>( rson, liable, "joint- ly anil severally," for injuries sulTered by others by such per- son's iulo.xicalion by said liquors, the |irincipals and sure- ties on dilTerent bonds may be joined in a single action. Franklin vs. Frcy (.Mich.). 6S ,V. ;/'. Rep. 970. CIVIL DAMAGES— LIABLE FOR DAMAGE SUSTAINED BY WIFE, EVEN THOUGH HUSBAND WAS HABITUAL DRUNKARD BEFORE SUCH SALES BEGUN.- In an ailiun against a .saloonkeeper for selling liipior lo plaintiff's husband, thereby injuring her means of sup- CIVIL DAMAGES. 107 pcirt, and her feeliugs, defendant will be liable for whatever daniaijes plaintiff has sustained from his acts, thongh the husband was an habitual drunkard before such sales began. Ford vs. Cheveer (Mich.), 63 N. W. Rep, gyo. CIVIL DAMAGES— MOTHEB ENTITLED TO RECOVER FOR DEATH OF ADtTLT SON, WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HER SUPPORT.— Acts 1887, Jv'o. 813, § 20, provides that every "parent who shall be injui'ed in person or pritperty or means of sup- port, by reason of the iutoxication of any person, shall have a right of action" against the person who shall, by furnish- ing intoxicating liquor, have caused or contributed to siich intoxication: Held, that plaintiff was entitled to recover for the death of her adult son caused by intoxication result- ing from liquor furnished him by defendant, where the son actually contributed to plaintiff's support, though there was no legal obligation on him to do so. Eddy vs. Courtright (Mich.), 5/ N. IV. Rep. 887. CIVIL DAMAGES— WIFE MAY RECOVER FOR INJURY TO HER FEELINGS.— Where a wife is injured in person, or property, or means of support or "otherwise" by reason of the sale of intoxicat- ing liquors to her husband (3 How. St., §2283e3), she may re- cover for injuries to her feelings. Radlcy vs. Seidcr (Mich.), 58 N. W. Rep. 366. CIVIL DAMAGES— ALL CONTRIBUTING TO INTOXICATION LIA- BLE.— Under act of 1SS7, making tlie saloonkeeper liable for all damages which result to tlie wife by reason of the hus- band's iutoxication, anyone causing or contributing to the intoxication is liable. IVaod vs. Lent::: (Mich.), J4 N. IV. Rep. 462. CIVIL DAMAGES— JOINT LIABILITY OF ALL VENDORS.— Under 3 How. St., § 2283e3, making all who contribute by sales of liquor to an intoxication jointly and severally lia- 108 COURT DECISIONS. l)le fur injuries n'.s\illin>: (iicrcfi'uin, diffcicMil liquor selltTS who on tlio sauu' day sell l inf oxicnicd in his own saloon, shot and killed the jilaiiil iff's Inisbaml. Held, that the drinking of the liquor by S. was not a traffic in intoxicating liquor, within the meaning of the law, or such as will render his sureties liable in an action upon his bond. Curlen vs. .^tkhtsnn (Neb.). 5/ A'^. IV. Rep. I^I. CIVIL DAMAGES— KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF PLAINTIFF TO THE FURNISHING OF LIQUOR TO HUSBAND. DOES NOT DEFEAT ACTION.— An action by a widr)w for damage suffered in conse- quence of the furnishing to her deceased husband of intoxi- cating liquors cannot be defeated by proof that such liquors were furnished by the defendant, a licensed saloonkeeper, witli tlie knowlcnlgo and consent of the plaintifT. Kliment ''s. Corcoran (Neb.), 70 N. W. Rep. 016. CIVIL DAMAGES— ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE AS TO SUPPORT OF MINOR CHILDREN.— Under the "civil damage act," the fact that minor chil- dren are abl(> to support themselves, and Imd done so prior to the death of tlie father, is a |)rojter fact f(ir the jury to consider in ascertaining the amount of damages to be al- lowed; but it is error to instruct the jury Ihat to the extent that a child had in the past supported himself, the law pre- cludes any recovery; the duty to support, and the probabil- ity of future support, as well as \he fact of past support, being elements for consideration. Huston vs. Gran (Neb.), 57 N. W. Rep. 403. CIVIL DAMAGES. 109 CIVIL DAMAGES— ESSENTIAL FACTS TO BE SHOWN.— In au action on the bond of a saloonkeeper, the fact es- sential to be shown is the disqualification to support those thereto entitled, caused or contributed to by sales of intoxi- cating- liquors to one upon whom legally devolves the duty of furnishing such support; and this disqualification may be either partial in effect or limited in duration, by reason of physical disability, or it may become complete as by death. Clundir vs. Saivyer (Neb.J, 60 N. IV. Rep. 54J. CIVIL DAMAGES— SURETIES ON BOND LIABLE.— A licensed dealer in intoxicating liquors and the sure- ties upon his bond are liable for the loss of support sus- tained by the widow and children of one whose death was contributed to by intoxicating liquors drunk by him, and which were furnished him by the dealer. Schiek vs. Sanders (Neb.), 74 N. W. 39. CIVIL DAMAGES— LOSS OF SUPPOBT.— In an action for damages by a married woman against a saloonkeeper for loss of means of support resulting from the sale of liquors to her husband, it is error to instruct the jury that habits of the husband, prior to the acts complained of, are immaterial. Although the fact that he drank to ex- cess will not defeat a recovery, yet such fact may properly be considered by the jury as affecting the measure of dam- ages. Uldrich vs. Gilmore (Neb.), 53 N. W. Rep. 135. CIVTL DAMAGES— LIABLE IF LIQUOH, MERELY CONTRIBUTES TO DAMAGES.— Under the statutes relating to damages caused by fur- nishing iutoxicatiug liquors it is not necessary that the liquor furnished, or any resultant intoxication, should be the sole, or even the principal cause of damage. It is sufficient if it contributes to produce the injuries. McClellan vs. Hein (Neb), 77 N. W. Rep. 120. 110 COURT DECISIONS. CIVIL DAMAGES— NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGE TO ANOTHER BY DRUNKEN MAN WHO DID NOT BUY OF HIM — I'lKlcr l,;i\\s 1S7;{, < li. (il(i, iiiaUiiij; ;i m-Uci of li(|Ui»r liiibic lor iiijiirits (o ollicis causeil by the iiiloxitali<»u of the persou to \\ liom ilic liquor was hold, a liquor seller is uot lialile where a pei-sou was injured In the n'lkless driviiij; of adiiiiikeii man, wiio did not Idniself purchase (lie iitpior liy which he was intoxicated, but wiiich was puichased by a fiieud, it not beiu^ shown that the diuukeu p«-ison was a participant in sucli piircliase. Dudley vs. I'itrkcr New York. CIVIL DAMAGES— NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF LESSOR TO SALE.— Itisuutesseutial to therif^htof the plaintiff, in an action under section t.'Jdl of the Kevised Statutes to subject the premises where intoxicating liquors were unlawfully sold to the payment of the damages caused by such sales, either that the premises should have bi^en leased for the purpose of selling liquor tiiereou in violation of law, or that the owner or lessor had knowledge that such liquors were to be sold tbereou, or knowingly permitted ihe sales which caused the damages. Such action may be maintained, if tiie iiremises were leased to be used for the sale of intoxicating liquor, or were permitted b^ the lessor to be so used. Mullen vs. I'cck (Ohio), si ^- l^- A\'p. lojj. CIVIL DAMAGES— IF SON HAS NO FAMILY RELATION WITH FATHER, LATTER CANNOT RECOVER FOR INJURIES TO SON.— A father, between whom and his adult sou neither a subsisting family relation, nor that of master and servant was shown to exist, is not a i)ersou "aggrieved" by injuries (o the son res\ilting from the sale of li(pior to him while iu- toxicatetl, within ilie mcainng of Act I'a., May 8, 1SS4, which renders the vendor of intoxicating liquors to one al- ready tirunk, civilly liable to "any one aggrieved" in jerson or jiropcrly in conseinieiice thererohibiling "the selling, giving or otherwise disposing of" intoxicating liquors without a li- ILLEGAL SALE. 113 cenwe, the words *'or otlieiwise disposing of" refer to a dis- position of tlie same class as a sale or gift, Robcrson vs. State (Ala.), 14 South. Rep. ^§4. ILLEGAL SALE— WHETHER THE LOAN OF BOTTLE OF WHISKY WAS A SUBTERFUGE OB, BONA FIDE, A QUESTION FOB JURY.— On a trial for an unlawful sale of liquor, the evidence showed that defendant loaned a bottle of whisky to one who promised to return it in kind: Held that, if the exchange was made in good faith, it would not be a "sale," and defend- ant should be acquitted, but if it was a subterfuge, to avoid the statute, it would be a sale, for which defendant should be convicted, and that the jury should have been so charged. Robinson vs. State {Ark.), zj S. IV. Rep. 2jj. ILLEGAL SALE— TO FEMALES— INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE SALE IN ROOM NOT USED AS WINE ROOM.— Under Laws 1891, p. 315, forbidding the sale of liquor to females in any wine room kept in connection with a saloon, evidence of such sale in a room used as a dining room or restaurant, for lodgers in the upper part of the saloon building, to female servants in charge of such rooms, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. Walker vs. People (Colo.), 57 Puc. Rep. 2p. ILLEGAL SALE— A PERSON WHO RECEIVES MONEY AND DE- LIVERS WHISKY MAY BE REGARDED AS SELLER.— In a prohibition county a person who receives money from another with a request to procure whisky, and who shortly afterward delivers tiie whisky, may be treated . as the seller, if no other person tilling that character ap- pears, and if it is not shown where, how or from whom the whisky was obtained. Grant vs. State Sup. Ct., Georgia. ILLEGAL SALE— BUYING FOR ANOTHER.— If the accused, acting bona fide as the agent of another, bought liquor for the latter with the latter's money, and de- livered it to the person for whom it was bought, these facts 8 Ill COURT DECISIONS. did not constitute a sale of licjuor by tlio accused, wliethor the person from wliicli lie houj^lit was lejzally autlmrizi^d to sell or not; but if, in a prima fmir case of jruilt, he made a statement to tbe jury, and tlierein ;;ave an explanation of the transaction which was a mere suhterfuiie to cover up an unlawful sale of licjuor by himself, the jury would he author- ized to fiiid him <:uilty. White vs. Stale (Ga.). K) S. E. Rep. 49. ILLEGAL SALE— IN COUNTBY.— Kev. St. 1893, ch. 43, S !(», makinj]: it a criminal offense to sell intoxicatintr liquors outside of cities, towns, and villages "in any less (pianlity tiian five ;,'allons, and in the ori^jinal package as put up by tlie inannfacturer," prohibits sales of less than five gallons, except when contained in an original package. Tipton vs. People (III.), 40 N. E. Rep. 838. ILLEGAL SALE— OFFENSE IS FN THE SELLING, NOT IN FUR- NISHING MONEY TO PURCHASE.— Money was furnished l)y a city to a person, to enable him to buy beer to detect violations of au nrdinauce. A per- son willingly sold him beer. Held, that the offense was in the selling, and the accused could not complain of the city's acts. City of Evanston vs. Meyers (III.). N. E. Rep. 204. ILLEGAL SALE— LIQUOR FOUND ON PREMISES PRESUMPTIVE PROOF.— On trial there was no proof of arlua! sales of li, whitli pntvitlcs tliat "an olTouse coiiiMiittctl on tlit> honmliii'v line of t\v«> countirs, or within one iMimln-il rods of such line, may hv alh'p-d to havf been roniinitt«Ml, ami ^^\■.\^ he prosci iitnl ami imnishfd, in either ronnt y," in a lace in such town which was tised for the unlawful sale of liqnor, is admissible to show that defendant had reasonable cause to 1)elie\<> that the liquor was intended to be sold tliere < ontrary to law. Conittwmveallh j's. Loe7ve (Mass.), 59 N. E. Rep. iQ?. ILLEGAL SAXE— EVIDENCE.— UpoTi the trial for uiaintaininfr a liquor nuisance, it was shown that iuto.xicaled ])ersons had been seen on defend- ant's premises; tliat whisky was discovereil in an adjoin- in;;; building, the key of which was found in defendant's house. IOvid(>nce was olTere