Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-01-08
THE MAINE LIQUOR LAW.


In the United States Circuit Court for Rhode
Island on Thursday last Judge PITMAN read the
opinion of Mr.. Justice Curtis, in the case Of Will
liam III. Greene us Nathaniel NJ Briggs ct al in
volving the constitutionalty of the Maine Liquor
Law. We find in the Providence Journal the fol
lowing abstract Of this decision:
The action replevin for certain spirtuous liquor
committed to the defendants constables of the city
Providence by order of the Court Of Magistrates to
destroyed according the provisions of the Act for tn
Suppression Of Drinking Houses and Tipping Shops.
The adjudication of the involved important ques
tons arising under the Constitution and laws Of the State
Judge CURTIS in giving his opinion cited the 10th anc
18th sections of articles lst of the Constitution which arc
follows
Sec. TO- In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall
enjoy the right to speedy and public trial. by impair
a jury TO be informed Of the and cause Of the
accusation to be confronted with the witnesses against
him. to have compulsory process for obtaining them in
his favor to have the assistance of counsel in his defence
and shall be at liberty to speak for himself shall he be
deprived Of e liberty, property, unless by the udg
ment of his peers the law of the land
Sec. 10 The right Of trial by jury shall remain in
violate f.t#a
He said the meaning Of these two clauses was that in
civil trial by jury is be had in those classes Of
in which it had been practsed down to the time
when the Constitution framed and such trial is to be
substantially in accordance with such modes Of proceed
ing had then existed might thereafter be devised by
the Legislature, without mpairng the right itself But
in all criminal cases the right to trial by jury accom-
panied by the other privileges enumerated and Defined
absolutely to exist"
After stating the substance Of sections H. IL and IS
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 we're an infracon Of the right trial by jury
In order to obtain trial by jury, the party give Sc
cury in sum not less than $780, with two sufficient
sureties to pay all fines and costs which might be adj
judged against him. and must subject himself to the
hazard of having the fine inflicted by the justice Of the
peace increased fvefod if the quantity Of liquor seized
should exceed, as in this it did exceed FIVE gallons
In the constitutional provision that person shall be
deprived of "lfe liberty property unless by judy
ment of his peers the law Of the land the phrase the
law of the and had been construed to by due pro-
cess Of law"
This provision Of the act also conaiced with section
14h Of the Constitution, every being presumed
innocent until he pronounced guilty by law act Of
security which not necessary to accused per-
shall be permitted The also conhicted with the
clause requiring that the accused should be informed of
the nature and Of the accusation" This act did
not require that any particular person should be charged
and in the at bar the complaint charged no one
The process defective also for want Of certainty in
specifying the liquors to be seized.
1t also defective in not charging fully the crime
upon which trial to be had The accused had not
only an absolute right to trial by jury, but also right
be charged that when that trial takes place the rv
should pass upon the whole charge But the act provided
in the Of appeal where the liquors seized shall
exceed FIVE gallons if the final decision shall be against
the appellant he shall be adjudged common seller
and be sentenced SUCH that he might be convicted
Of this higher offence without being charged with IT, and
without trial by jury Of Of the facts essential 70
constitute IT, But even IL the proceedings against the
person and the property were reparable and the only
result was forfeiture Of the property the complaint
would be still 50 deficient in the requisite certainty
be bad for that cause.
He consequently held the order Of forfeiture invalid
first, because there was no sufficient complaint and
secondly because the plaintiff was deprived Of his pro-
perty by criminal prosecution in which he neither had
nor could havea trial by jury without submitting to
conditions which the Legislature had no constitutional
power to impose The Court also thought the order not
simply vodabe, but absolutely void the magistrates
having no jurisdiction the proceedings And they
nominal damages.
Judge Prrsss concurred in the opinion.