The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-07-18


vent the sale OF imported liquor Before the passage OF
tbs aot every body had right 70 sell imported liquor
with certain excise restrictions Tnsu the whole gst OF
the charge L. that certain class Of hquori ssId
Which intended to be sid The exception the
act provices ,ha' shall not apply to-that t.
fore, tba exception 4 the sct tue proceedings
must shos that the liquor charged to have beea sold
~ ".s h pot then passed to the
before jury, nasm ach ~ the offence was an Infamous
one for ii convicted the prisoner would Be dtsqu Allied
to act IA juror.
Judge Strong did not see how this point Of infAmy
ALL The deprivation OF his right to act Is juror
was OF direct punishmeas but indirect conssq seoos
consequences might BE- hereafter declared to b illegal
Counsel explained that he discussed this polat show
hat the crime II sttgmstzAd as an infamous" one;
urissiction
Judge strong thought It was stretching the matter
too far This prevention Of acting juror in
Council esx ced At s the Argumsnss pro Ind con; and
conclusion be thought that this act piled up pun
shine mt upon punishmsst, and was 10 the highest de-
gree penal IL sboud be construed the ssuse
and that the prosecutor should be held to the srcss
proof
The argument here clors and tho Court reserved its
decision.
The Last Broasislie into tho Liquor Law
Decision In tho Case OF Smith 8 Dowd.
COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS.
DECISION OF RECORDER SMITH.
At an early hour yesterday morning the Court room
Of the Special Sessions crowded to excess by an
audiences intsre in hearing the dscson Recorder
Smith IN the liquor trials Of Dowd smith This Car.
son League represented by Of It's jealous
advocates, and the liquor side was Represented
by dealers in the article and consumers Of 1t,
too It q motley crowd, taken Ill in all. Toere
were some ladies present, about half dozen,
who alo appeared 70 have some interest Ia the
decision. Al O'Clock the Court opened and the
Recorder took bis aas The officer raped for ordsr
profound silence prevailing, the Recorder read the
following desision-
On the 10th day Of July inst Mary Martin made an
sfiesvt before rolse justice Wood IN which soc al
eating honor 10 wit BRANDY WAS solo TO by the de-
fndsDt Thomas Dowd in violation Of the provisons of
the act ent tied An for the suppression Of intsm
pelsncc pauperism crime, passed April y 1885,"
ard that che paid Tor said liquor and oraok the
the premises Of the defsndsnt Upon this adavt jas
iencaDt was arrested taken before the justice and
held TO bai to answer the charge Ut the Special SIS
sicDs On appearing this C0ur toe defendant waved
his right OF iria by jury and inerpossd ples OF not
guilty Upon the trial the defendant admitted that he
told brandy to the wtaess Martini at ths time speci
fed by her in her affidavit but coupled the admission
with the avrment that tbs brandy sold imported.
notwithstanding the admission Of the defendant, the
uifntss, Mxren, was sworn on behalf Of the people,
and confirmed the facts AZ to the sale OF the
iquor by the teendant 20 the witness. stated In
the satavit upon which the warrant issued and
In reply to . question BY the defendsnts COUNSEL
che stated thss she do not know whsthsr the
present to the prosssutioa upon quss.
ton OF much Int crest the involved in this
car se would have been certifying to me 70 have mao
ed Previous to the OF the art above
to, power to grant hcsDs to te liquor &c. in the
city of New Yort, vested In the Mayor and Common
Council The same act that conferred upon fhsm tae
p,wer grant licenses also imposed specific penalties
BE- enforced BY civ rnsoy, and also fine and npris
enmtn TO BE- eniorcsd ~ csiminsl prosecution ssor
M s. the 81 sns ss.si possa
provided in the then existing laws. The licenses
then authorized are expressly abolished BY the 25th
be granud pit the license MT ned In the second
section of that act know It has been COMMENDED
thar the penstes under the statutes existing before
the act Of April stD in force and not effect.
ed by tie last mentioned That the penalty i'm.
posed ,he1s was Tor selling liquor without license,
sell the old statute stOl operative do NOT under
stand the law The penalty under the old statute was
ceEss mentioned in that statute The statute impos-
ing the penalty repealed BY the Path section Of the act
q Apd Inc eeD.ny enSMes wn s1s ~ snss crsassa
and that only for the c' and for the penalty Ths
path section Of that act 10 broad and sweeping In its
t.rms I~pesis aii the acts and parts Of acts aud ell
charters parts of charters" With the
act 1he Lgaturs in framing that section clearly in
venting setons then in progress fIo being elected oy
It, enacted that NO suit commenced or indictmsnt
found before the act took effect should in any m.s-
ton il the Legislature ntrn dea that tbs old penal
operative. The question then before the Court 10.
has the defendant violated any Of the provisions Of
ns 1ns s 81 .:o snS what
follows - Intoxicating liquor Except hereinafter
proyds shall not b. solo OF kept ter sale, or with In
tent to be cold BY any person for himself any
perton N airy place ~batsorver shall it b. gwen
away except az medic by physicians pursuing the
pposes nor 30 kept WITH tbs intent to 30 given away
IN any place whatever, except d~e'lSg house In
which or ~, par: q rss no stos gro
esnbliDg, osnciDg, or other public amussuens re
creation Of any kind kept nor shs 1t be kept do
bouse ~ ABOVE described, in church place Of
worship for sacrsmentAl purposes. or In place where
either some ,S cn:ne. mson.nc, o. msalc.l scs 70
regular branch Of business while In actual trAnspor
taton from oce place 70 another, or storei In ware
house. prior to s reaching hs place Of destination THIS
section stall not apply 70 liquor the right to sell which
In this State is given by any Law or treaty Of the
word destination, . tbs question pressatsd By the
council for the defendant could not have arisen Bat
1t DOW contendsd BY the Counsel that although his
client has sold liquor without license, he hes NOT vio
lated any Of the provisions Of the act Of April on Of any
exatDg statute That the latter clause OF ths frst
fr the operation Of Toe act That the hight to I'M
Port liquor into this state under the law and under
ties Of ID. United States = conceded And that the
thll, cannot be disputed that this il pass
ed originally framed. That It not the offspring
Of mind but the contrary that section after
passed by different persons that II altered
end ocs1ed to meet different views, and 10 silence
pudce against certain sections and that the necessity
for there frequent alterations, additions and amend
mtnts, from the fact that without them the bill
would never have become Law Whatever may been
the intention of the Trainer fra latter clause
Of the rst ion only derive from the Ian
suase embodied In it, The judicial construction be
preoicsts3, upon that and that alone Whatever this
intention Of tie legislature might have been, is mst
ter OF no moment tae consderat Of penal ststut
unless that innt il clearly and distinctly expressed
In Other words 81 the disputed point II o.
to admit Of two constructions that construction most
fav rabe - the party to be affected BY It. 10 the con
Grnction that must prevail "1he laws which restrain
soeh those that forbid thing that ID not In itself
unlawful or which dsrosats In any other fro
Dc law the laws which inct punt hmsnts for
crimes ofepces penalties civil matters; those
which prescribe certain formatiss the lave which ap
p have any hsrdsnip In them those which permit
oitph.rsins others the Ike TO be interpreted
in such msnner not TO DO applied beyond what 10
chs,y sxpres.sc the law, to any consequencea To
Which the laws DO rot extend And, the contrary,
we ought TO give to such laws all the tempsra-
s~a khs<