Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1853-01-07
TIE MAINE LIQUOR LAW.

In the United States Circuit Court fer Rhode IS
| land, on Thursday last, Judge Pitman read the
opinion at Justice Curtis, in the case of VIM. II.
| Green, vs. Nathanial NJ. Briggs ct al, Involving
heconSttutionality Of the Maine Liquor Law. We
find in the Providence Journal tie following ab-
stract of this decision: re- +
The action was replevin for certain spirituous Ii
quors committed to the defendants constableS of
the city of Providence, by an order of the Court
of Magistrates, 10 be destroyed according TO the
provisions of the "Act for the Suppression of Drink
ing Houses and Tipping Shops" The adjudica-
ton of the case involved important questions ari
sing under the Constitution and laws of States.
Judge Curtis, in giving his opinion, cited the 10th
and 18th sections of article LIST of the ConStitu-
ton, which are as follows:
Sec. 10.iIn all criminal prosecutions the accused
| shall enjoy the right to speedy and public trial,
by an impartial jury; 10 be informed OF the ma
ture and cause of the accusation, to be confront
ed with the witnesses against him, to have com
pulsory process for obtaining them in his favor, to
have the assistance of counsel in his defence, and
shall be at liberty speak for himself nor shall he
be deprived of life, liberty or property, unless by
judgement OF his peers or the law OF the land.
Sec. 10. The right of trial by jury shall remain
inviolate.
He said that the meaning of these two clauses
was that sin civil causes trial by jury is to be
had III those classes of cases in which it had been
practiSed doN 10 the time when the Constitution
was framed, and such trial is to be substantially in
accordancewi sucFs modes of proceeding as had
en- existed, or might thereafter be devised by the
Legislature, without impaitiag the right ITSELF
But in all criminal cases the right to trial by jury
accompanied by the other privileges enumerated
and defined, Is absolutely to exist"
After stating the substance of sections II, 10
and ID of the Act for the Suppression of Drinking
Houses and Tipping Shops, he stated that they
were in conflict with the Constitution in several
particulars. The conditions Of appeal were an
infraction Of tie right 10 trial yiury In orGer TO
obtain trial by jury the party must give security
in sum not less than $500, with two sufficient
sureties, to pay I'LL fines and costs which might be
adiudged against him, and must subject himself to
the hazard of having the fine inflicted by the JUS
tice of peace increased vefoid if the quantity of
the iqcor seized should exceed, in this case it
did exceed, five gallons In the constitutional
provision that no person shall be deprived If "Lte
liberty, property, unless blythe judgement of
his peers or the law of the land,' the phrose
''the law of the land' had been construed to
mean "by due process of law"
This provision of the act also confticted with
section 14th of the Constitution, "every man be-
ing presumed innocent until he is pronounced gull
ty by law, no act of security which is not neces-
sary to secure an accused person shall be permit
led" The act also conaicted with the clause re-
quiringthat the accused should be informed OF the
"nature and cause of the accusation.' This act
did not require that any particular person Should be
charged, and in the case at bar the complaint
charged no one. The process was defective also
for want of certainty in specifying the Liquors 10 be
seized. -.ri.ls '.,f 90.
lCwaS also deceive IN MOI
crime upon which the trial was to be had. The
accused had not only an absolute right TO a trial
by jury, but also right to be charged that when
that trial takes place the jury should pass upon the
whole charge. But the act provided, in the case
ofan appeal, where liquors seized shall exceed five
gallons, if the final decision shall be against the
appellant, he shall be adiudged q ''common sell
ler,'' and be sentenced as such, so that he might
be convicted of this highe' offence without being
charged whit, and without trial by Jury OF one
Of the facts essential to constitute it. But EVENT.
the proceedings against the person and the proper
tywere repairuble, and the only result was for
feiture of the property, the complaint would still
be so deficient in the requisite. certainty as to be
bad for that cause. tsia'sL
He consequently held the order Of forfeiture In
valid; first, because there was no sufficient COM
plant and secondly, because the comPlalnantwas
deprived of his property by criminal prosecution;
in which he neither had nor could have atrial by
jury, without submitting TO conditions which the
Legislature had no constitutional power to impose.
The Court Thought the order not simply Toldable,
but absolutelyvoid; the magistrates having no tu-
risdiction over the proceedings. And they gRYe
judgement for the plaintiff on the demurrer, With
nominal damages, rat; +, .y.;atI5a
Judge Pitman concuned in the opinion,
.--------z----------
The emigration into New, York, il the Last four
years, has been as foil sos; 1850,
St2, 7s6; 1851, 2s9, sol 1882 i3Ss, 656. y
a. On Friday last there were entered at the port
UTC 1O,949 bushels Of potat Toes 1855 pounds