New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-07-23
LAW LNTELLIGEVOK
THE PRoHIBITORY LIQUOR LAW.
SUPREME COURT-GgSERAL TERN.

CASH OF THOMAS ToYSBER IN BROOKLYN
On Saturday last tho case of Toe People of the
State Of New-York agt. Thomas Toynbee for selling
intoxicating liquor upon appeal from the decision Of
Judge d. X. Smith, rendered on the 18th ins., came
up before Judges Brown ard Strong in the General
Term of the Supreme Court Of the Second Judicial
District Of the State Of New-York at the Governor
Chamber, City Hall, Brooklyn. Judge Rockwell wa'
prevented from being present by sickness. NJ Van
Colt and n. +. Waring appeared on behalf Of the
prosecution and Alex. Hadden, John a. Lott and 5.
ID. Morris for the defendant.
The decision Of Justice Smith Of the Court Of Spe-
cia Sessions is that the defendant is guilty OF selling
and having in his possession with ntont to SELL ntoxi-
eating liquors. as charged in the complaint, and adj
Judge him guilty Of a msdemeanor, and do sentence
him 10 pay ine Of $50 and the further of IS 81
for the costs and fees of such judgment and that he
stand committed until such fine and costs be paid, not
exceeding fifty six days and do further ajudge that
the intoxicating liquor so seized and described in said
complaint be forfeited and that warrant issue that
sold liquor seized and forfeited be destroyed.
1t appears that the counsel for the defendaat had
propo,ed TO Mayor Hall to postpone the until the
ne1 General Term IN September, condition that ne
would defer any other prosecution under the Prohibit
tory Law until after the decision of the Supreme Cosr
should be there rendered Up to Friday noon it was
anticipated by The opponents OF the Prohbitory Law
that the Mayor would sgeee to this but at that time
he d. cined TO enter into any such agreement cOnsd
,ring il is duty to enforce the law long as il
plainly his duty TO do. This position of affairs rel
derod ii desirable both sidos that the Gaze s)oud
come up for trial during the present Term.
The following the grounds OF appeal from the
above decision, taken by the defendants attorney,
Mr.. MORRIs
F.ra That the Justice Oned in denying the motion
TO dsmss tie complaint, and discharge the defendant
Second That the Justice erred in not admitting the
defendant TO bail TO appear at the next Court OF
Criminal Ju isdictioD.
THIRD. That the Justice erred in admitting evidence
Of the sale of intoxicating liquor by the defendant
Fourth That the judgment OF forfeiture was not
authorized by the issue and is void.
Fitk. That the arrest of the defendant and the
seizure of the liquor was unconstitutional and Void,
and tie Justice acquired no jurisdiction oven the de-
PENDANT orthe liquor seized.
Sirth That the provisions Of the Act under which
the proceedings were taken, and the judgment had,
uncons tuonal and void.
Serentk: That the defendant should have been dis
81 arped and the liquor seized returned 10 him.
At g o clock A. NJ, MIR llsddam opened the case.
He sed the questioIs involved IN this case have been
so fully discussed in the opinions prnted 10 the news
papers, that all that required /: TO afford new Nus
iTsiiOus of the correctness of opinions already pub
lshed We take the opinion in the first place, that
does Lot appear by the complaint that any crime or
oficnse whatever has been committed by the defend
ant, becaufe not appear Dy rdil
the Intoxicating liquor alleged TO have been sold by
the defendant is prohibited by the act under which
this proceeding is insttuied because 1t does not a-
rear by said complaint that the liquor so ale yed TO
have been sold by the defendant was not h4u2r the
right TO sel which in this State is given by law or
treat OF the United States. Our position then Is, that
tie sale of imported liquos is not prohibited by this
act The language OF the act -, we contend, eItrely
explicit When the language used by Legislaiure
has one and Orly one obvious construction as 10 10
intent but following the natural effect OF that
language when we give TO II its Legitimate gramnaii-
cal and chronological construction. We have no rgat,
because We may be Of opinion that the Legislature
intended 20 accomplish certain purposes that they
have done it. The language used in the last clause
of the FIST section OF this act is:
Th. section shall apply liquors the rshf 70 sell Which
in tbs i given by any law treaty Of the United stste
Now II man had presented 10 him this proposition,
ard was not told that there certain m0tes-t1 81
there were certain quantities in which Liquors are per-
mtcd TO be sold by The laws and treaties OF the nitcd
States certainly tie proposition never would present
iisolf his mind that the ausOn in that section was
10 ANYTHING than to the lq uOreTaly the liquor.
Ii is therefore obvious, because in order 70 give any
other nteTretstion-n order TO give any other mean
ing to this anguage-you have TO 20 outside the sub
iect 10 matters hot patent hereto e1traneous cucln
stances order TO discover any other mole OF Inter-
pretaton. The conclusion is irresistible that the
language of the sct does not convey any such idea
restricting the mode Of selling imported liquors. hen
We take into consideration the fact that the Legsa
ture is supposed 10 render everything explicit snd
plain, and how very easy it would have been 10 rem
der their meaning differently if it was so-if they had
any other intention, it Is impossible to arrive at
any other conclusion. II appears 70 me that this sec
ton which is supposed 70 restrict in this exception 10
particular mode of selling liquor is totally inapph-
cable and can have no effect for this reason: When
We state that by the language OF this law VIC en-
titled 10 sell foreign or imported liquors, we are met
by ihoee who take the ground opposite 10 ours that
You can only sell it as prescribed by the law and
treaties of the United States but answer TO ths
is we do not claim that eIemption-we do not justify
the selling under the laws and treaties Of the United
States Justify i. because this act does not include
that liquor in the prohibition. The language which