The Rutland County herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1852-1855, 1853-03-26

rsCrs - Tnr casr.
Ta- escn-1 siair a Yub'ls irrilnr, just
o. ihis tirie, u7ails, .atjaei 81 ihe 4Msins
lager Las ~ Nersoni. aa8 ~ admius-
tauan--fb, cannacilaa have bed ~nh n.
md ihe r1cinsfs -ane sfc ule' rnr upan
aie ~ tho conclusions found aysclfcam-
p.cii-d g. arrive ~. and ihs uvuesi q sew
crsi " 'h frap4s ~ well ss orpan -nis Il
ih- i.sv. induces m, g. nakr Jphlic The
circumstance in vhirh uas pisces, aud
ssul- q tlc frse4us az ibe coue lnsions 60
vhach uulyed THIS is ma done 20 pro.
piiste tiif usn % o. sllirH the approval
81 thai -suaicica "a, mc g. ne coasc ious.
urss a hsying done Hy duty according
b. as" end The responsibilities N The oath
81 magistrate, under uh.ch ! actsd. u
j. bot Iusice that should remark thH
vhilc che main principles n she Law meet
mf approval. e.ue ~ iis features. b was
vel kuoun, did MT hike, aud could MT
sustain I was rrckomrd ga opyoHsnf -
ihr IaW. The provision. Tor seizure, &C..
were ne~ ~ cur Jurisprudence. we had no
presidents o. pracuoe ior guide. IN tins
,irW ! urged that some Of ihr diu,ds Of
the l-sN should be- hf-i called ui,an 10 od-
minister u Who should msfk oui the path
a. be followed. To tins was answered.
W want r. nv ysp on : and II you dare
refuse 90 execute the Law. 10 Pot you
through faf The 500 fine Thercupon
complaints were inside 10 me-. ~ a inaris.
train under the l2th section OF the law,
and ISSUED my warrants "fo search the
premises described IN The complaints" In
one Of the complaints a" the premises de-
scrbcd7 consisted Of four separate build.
mgr, and described by The names Of the
owners
Upon search the officer returned that he
had found Intoxicating liquors in two Of
the buildings, and had seized il and re
turned the warrants to lac. Whercupon
the prosecuting officer claimed Of me
Judgment Of forfeiture Of the liquors and
fine Of $40 in each case ulon one Of those
named IN the complaint. This being the
fret proceeding known under this Law, time
was taken for consideration Of the matter
Amer due examination of the Law and It's
connection with other laws binding upon
all courts, came 10 the following conclu.
sions
!. That this law recognizes Intoxicating
Liquors as property, and capable of owner
ship by any one,
?. intoxicating Liquors are not by this
act or any law of this State declared forfeit
n or contrdJand goods, wherever. howcv-
er or by whomsoeycr kept or deposited
J. The Keeping of intoxicating liquors.
whether "intsnded for sale contrary to law"
or not, Is nowhere in the act prohibited or
made crime or oG,nce.
I. Private property cannot by law be for
.feifed or seized except for some crime or Of
fence committed by Its owner; and cannot
be tnken for the public benefit except ON
payment Of compensation to the owner.
.. Any proceeding by which ones prop
erty can be seized or forfeited is criminal
proceeding, and 10 which It's owner must be
made a party, and legal trial be had.
g. That "all fines shall be proportioned
TO the oiteuces" committed, and none can
be imposed without a prosecution, in which
the offender hath righ, To be heard To
demand the cause and nature of his aeon
suton; 10 be confronted with the Witnesses
against him and only upon "a public tn
al by an " impartial jury" and their
Unanimous consent" 10 his guilt
To the correctness of these conclusions
! think every lawyer will assent.
On examination of the 18th sec. Of this
law, the magistrate will find he is called
upon by it--and in defiance Of the funda-
mental principles upon which all laws rest
to pass sentence upon n, property, and
restrain The liberty ola citizen, without a
ehnrg' of crime or the slightest delinquency
by him-wIthout process against him
without erideact against him and without
a friai. For myself, can but say that
this view IL too abhonent to Justice and
propnety 10 be entertained and with these
views held the proceedings void, and dis
missed the complaints.
In this proceeding ! find myself sustain
ed by the decision Of Judge Curtis, of the
L. ). Court, upon the law of Rhode Island.
Of which this l2th section is a COPY and
in proceedings in all things similar TO those
before me.
Erpediency might have dictated differ.
ent decision in tins case, 10 have enabled
the question 10 have been tried by the Su-
preme Court, had no, the way been equal
ly open by the decisions of hundreds of
magistrates, favorable to the law, all around
us-and equally open under This decision,
by summary process, had the complainanis
sought II. Hence felt at liberty TO follow
the dictates Of my Judgment in the matter.
holding myself responsible for the conse.
quences Of ny decision.
w. II. SMITH.
Rutland, March 23d, is53.