The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1854-07-05
The LIQUOR Law.

county, under the new liquor law. few
days since, S. w. NoLL, Esq, of Ohio
township, sent up man for 20 days and
fined him $50, for selling to minor.
THos. NEAL. Esq, of Perry, has sent up
three: One for 10 days-fne $40; another
for 90 days-fne $50; and another. for
violation of the fourth section, for 20 days
fine 500. The premises of the last
one were declared public nuisance, and
the owner required to enter into bond in
the sum of 1000, not to sell intoxicating
liquors, contrary to the laws Of this State
The three first cases came before the
Probate Court on writs Of habeas corpus.
but the Court refused to discharge.
Parties in other cases, where they re-
fused to plead guilty, have been recognised
to the Probate Court.
P. S. After the foregoing was written.
the third case heard before Esquire NEAL.
being the case of Ohio VS.. Richard w.
McAnaspy-came before the Probate
Court, on writ of habeas corpus, and the
| defendant was discharged.
That there may be no misunderstanding
of the grounds upon which the decision
was based, we have thought it proper to
give some of the points upon which the
case turned. The Court held
/. That the commitment issued by a
Justice Of the Peace, upon which any per-
son may be imprisoned, must show. sub
stantially. a criminal matter for which the
Justice had jurisdiction to commit; and
unless jurisdiction appear, in some man
ner, the applicant. upon habeas corpus,
will, on hearing, be discharged.
2. That Justice of the Peace, who is
an officer of limited s,atuary powers. has
no authority to abate nuisance, under the
temperance act OF May /, 1854; and as n o
part of the temperance act justi6es the in
ference, that the legislature intended to
confer jurisdiction upon Justice to infiicl
a part only of the penalties for violations
of the fourth section Of the act, such a con-
struction could not be claimed; and, there
fore, it follows, that Justice can only hold
an examining court, in prosecutions under
said fourth section, and acquit, or recog-
nize to the Probate Court, or commit to
iail in default of such recognizance; and
this Notwithstanding the general words oI
the proviso in section l / that the Justice.
upon plea of guilty, may affix the penalty
&c.
8. That "the object OF all construction" )"
as Judge Ranney said in 1srmer rs' The
State, "being to arrive at the intention Of
the legislature, we are justified in 10 aking
at the whole act; and that where, upon
such examin alton, it appears. as in this
!, case, that such general words were not in.
tended to reach all the sections Of the act.
sound principles may be invoked to justify
US in so holding. And this construction.
in fact, does no violence to the language of
the proyiso, and is consistent with the gen.
eral intent of the act, and with the organi-
zation and powers Of courts.
4. That when prosecution is COM
menced in the Probate Court, under said
fourth section, by filing transcript. &c.,
from q Justice Of the Peace or Mayor. the
case may be heard in the Probate Court
and, upon conviction of the accused, thai
Court, by the grant of power in the fifty
eighth section Of the Probate Code. has full
power and authority to abate the nuisance
5. That the Probate Court. having by
statute all the powers under this law OF
court of general jurisdiction, may, by rules
Of court, supply any defects in the details
, of the act; but a justice OF the Peace, ol
Mayor, not having power to make suct
rules of court, could only proceed where
the statute provides, at least, genera
, course of procedure.
6. That in deciding this case, no intlma
nation is given, that Justice OF the Peace
:. or Mayor, has not the power, under sec
: tons g. and 5 of said act, upon plei
Of guilty. to fine and imprison; but, upor
1.-The contrary, Justice Of the Peace, o