The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-07-03

bis<d the sale retail OF strong spYfeoous quore
to ~ drank ths pYemisss Of the selie1 y 800 II
license II mat~ris y amended by the act OF 1874
Tbs sscons section Of the act u 1924 Of the tass
s.irsuous au.r hy retail to b. c,aDn On tSe
Of the seller without hcsnse, and made tbs often u
pun sbaosr as msdemesnsr, in cd 'ion to any psusi
ties b~d by pr~vi0ua ssNta by ths ch
ter Of the city and thu 6th section prohibited sach sale
in qusntites above ave sahons, WITHOUT such license
by the act 1924, the set ami med 1885,
as sess. Laws p sss) but not In any way m.s%ri4l
to the question now under consideration, AMI
new set passed In 1927 amending tbs Get that
every p~rson vbssad hy retail In tins city Of New York,
or delivered m pnxsuance Of sucn sale ans wine or
house, &c witbon. beng licensed ascorans to Ia :,
should forfeit Dd pay the OF S26 Tor every Offences
There were the ssatutesin force this suce,t to
the passsse OF the act entitled IAN act to prevent
Temperance" &c passed on the 9th Of April 1895 By
this act tive ssctns operation chs lsto May,
any ector Of the city who oa,psd nth the peovi,oss
Of that section, TO sell haaars untsy tne resyc.pas
therein imposed, and ths twenty Afth sscilca ,S,oh
provided. sscuIc thereafter b. granted Ana ass.r.a
that ell hqac. kept IN yo'.t'n 81 aSy or ,r
Of tho act; should b ssss.a ciis ouisasss
g n :. ths ;,s1 ~s,s,so. 'e rep. eoas:,y to
nuiisy uD,.: e. .oarth Q, July, 1895 because there
waa ~ provision Of that Law in oo ration which prah
S,ea N any way the Ae'png Of sprtaus 0: any
bnd, and un'il there sections went into efoct there
comic be NO liquor kept contrary to those provisions
We LETT therefore to decide TOE simple question shs
bbss the granting Of any Iicsasss to sell hquor
allowed heretofore. and providing for new mode
Of Licensing for such purpose, repealed the previous
that the examipst OF this question, We have moth
ing TO do With the res6u of the statute Of 1885 There
ia Part Of it force except the two sections above
fe,red to- There Is repeating :Ause in effect and II
those acts repealed, IL only be by impoa.ou
In tie Of this case ALSO, NO point has re-
made by the defeDdans counsel to the Al
questions which might from tbs passage Of act
totally prohibiting the sale Of liquors. which virtually Is
Upon this question, therefore, We express no opnoa
There doubt that neOrs the pssssgs o. the H.
laws and the provisions on the suhsct Of LICENSES
in be charters Of the city, the traffic IN liquor BY the
ccDu on law free; that these stAtat4s p-n4l
statutes rot to be enlarged except by furshsr statut ny
provisions 1t 10 concedet by the argument Of the
~. that objection existed the provisions OF the H.
acts previous to the pasae Of the aat OF 1852
The object Of those acts evidently t~ooid, viz to
lay duty the sale liquor, and regulate tue sab
thereof and the keeping OF nos and taserDs. Toe
peal Of ths license evidently ABOLISHED all that part
revenue Taking away the license Terminated also rhs
duty which by the Ice ayssem accrued to the CITY,
enc therefore the whole OF those acts which were
tended excise laws tasd to have any force effects
penslty 'mposed To prevent the sale OF liquor un'il
the duty imposed by the statute was paid, would becoms
imperative the duty itself and the Acenee
which was the mode prescribed for coil citing the day
vas abolished. Laying ont OF ve~, then, 30 mush OF
shs Ms'n,e as relates 70 TIE excise and .as means
what remains The act Of 1913 and toe act of 1924
contained provisions regulating inns suc taver0s and
tbe sale Of liquor to b. drank the huse &c. BY the
seller without license either to retail strons liquors
or to itp an nm or tavern nhs act Of 1874 also Goa
larger than i've gallons without being licensed asoor
e to the provisions OF law 1t Can hardly be said that
the whole Of the act Of 1874 10 repealed Ia addition to
the Of granting Licenses to sell sprtuous liquors.
the first section contained the TO grant licenses
to keep inn or tavern, puoc orsinsry vitua'ins
house. THIS latter Incense 10 not to sell fpsrtuOus
Of the act. both By a title and It's provisions, was
under the rol OF the public authorizes, aud
by requiring lice nss 10 keep them. The 9th section
irem permitting ,iotous conduct on h,s premise.
or suncsy, and also PROHIBITS ssm'nr, &c, in such
places. On complaint Of any violation of tness prov
s'ons 1t authorizes The tahirg away OF tbs cease The
GIT to sell liquor by retail IN tavern, depsudr not on
license to retail liquor, but license TO keep
tavern and to AID to those rSstfictions thu gsA
ture thought proper regulate oil the sale OF
liquor by retail, to be drunk the prem ises, by
firing ,uch sale to those who should be licensed
The provision tb. Of 1865 only prob bits grant
ing ics TO sell liquor after the LIST OF MAyit IN no
way prohibits the grant the license Tor an or sav
Of lto5. Ibe Of 1927 passed merely for r~lev
DR eouht to the question whether penalty coald be
Hy ibis it IL provided that every person VINO shall sail
by retail in tie city Of New York. deliver, in par
susDce Of such sale, any liquors TO be drank on his
ltmses without beng licensed ;ordng TO- law, shau
forfeit and pay the sam Of S2b for every offence. BY
the TERM censsd according TO law We are to under
stand any mode referred to either in that leg other
laws That subject then in force Jhis uctediy
the primary nns, and such the expression
ittldso by Judge Woodruff in his opinion in the case
Of The Mayor Asrvis, de:ided kSrch term, 1855
But It VAS not iptsnceo in that Case to limit the
nipR Of the term, slioensed according to law"
), sxcues any other form Of ncssss which the
LegislatuTe might thereafter prescribe Az the laws
stood at The passage Of the act Of 1885, either ksns.
to retail sprituous OF lcenas to keep An inn or tavern
would be such license the act o, 1927 reluirej to
exempt The person licensed from the penalties o. that
& " then 70 III. ~h,ns, hs
At the present ms other provsoas in foos but
TO look At It AMPLY act containing those two
tons unconnectsd with the other provisions whica 60
INTO Effect On u. sn Of July There !: nothing IN these
acts The only section which repeats other statute
the Path section This, at the present time. bas
r'peeliDs effect but 1t GOES sbo~ BY toe time axed ct
whish the section becomes operative that until the 4th
fully 1885, was not declared by che sgslaturv that
any repeal should take place 1t can only 1e oy inpl
sstiop, Il en-, 1t ALL that any such repeal can be up
held repeal Of statute BY implication is not favor
ed (Dvans on Statutes, 674; sm'ths Com. Van R-ns
feasr VI Snyder, Barb 3t2 See also 2OS Hayes
smouds,-snd statutes not considered to oe ~
peaked unisss the Iepugnapcy between the new aud or
ner statutes he plain and unsyoidsbe- Ksnts Coso
4C1 There b such clssr repugnan. ~ inferred
from these statutes They can both subsst tosetber with
out contradiction The taking away eh:nss CERTAIN
cstes amounts 70 prohibition IN that respect, but
leaves other portions OF the statute effect and
changed by The prevsions already referred
to 'on- cass o. this character and others might oe
do not all interfere With th~m IL 10 said that
penslues will b applied the Fourth Of July,
Under the new act and therefore, the present
rep~ser. Whether not such viii be the effect Of toose
penalties when in force, to inquire. II they
ere ,ncon isent, provision IL then made for repsa
the inconsistent psrts Of the old statutes. Bu. tina.
epa does not take place until the ang clauses
In operation. Besides, 1t 10 general rule in tns
tructoD OF statutss that subsequent statutes, which
add new penalties and nsttute methods tf proceed
ing DO not peal former penalt and methods OF pro
csedirg orc AIMED by former statutes without negative
words 10 that effect (Dwars ON Statutes, GA; at
3b; 10 r. 24S)-unless the incougruity ween the
two statutes 10 such to mAte IL appsrent that they
cannot stand together And the view 10 taken OF
tuch statutes where the powers them may we'll
suhtist together. they BE- such that both may staad
together, they shall have concurrent efkcscy. The
csee referred TO from J. r., 379--Jonss VS..
Esth-is rot In point. That not in favor OF re.
pealing penalty which had before been provided by
law; but was against attempt to apply penalty
where the statate had placed It; and the Court
held that penalty could mol BE- raised BY m2licaton
question not dissimilAr 70 the present in tho
case Of The People Forenssy 6 Dsno 7O) where IL
cont ndsd that the provisions OF the Revived sta
-