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

6icDs therein required. reason why this 10 not
sct Of 1877, 20 - 10 provas mode Of sssg licensed
| by las although that mols may differ from the ono
origin any adopted Inc proper mode Of constru'n;
1855 nos In orcs a. Incorporated into the prsSlou,
acts, leaving out the portions which rendered An
operative thareby. The effect would be TO strike Oat
the provisions fer licenses soil sptrtuous liquors 10
qusnttss Eve gallons and TO retail sp ritaous
she second section Of This act providing for the sale Of
liquor under the limitations therein prescribed The
provisions Of tbs act OF e2 and the whole OF the
rule applicable to ths constru ,tion of statutes will ali
much In thu decision OF this quection. II that
the Courts should form the whole scope aad object Of
Of the statutes ascertain what the object and intent
the legislature was in passing the later act and 50
prevail There be doubt Of what the intent
IN the passage OF the act of 1855. II look a. the
es that the object and intent vas to s
or NIT the sale Of intoxicating liquors IT. however,
We only kok at the two sections now 10 operation,
ss;s.t.,. intended that li.enses ssouIi ~
.nssa "A u.n -uor nv retail after the Is. Of Mas,
ssesp' in the mode pf,,l,.u ,ss seo9na section No
passed With 'hs intent and - the purpos. q nasioy
The retail is: In liquor free and unconoUea besSssh
tDs LIT Q. May and 4tn Of july 70 tas exc
Re Inferred from the abolition Of the censs sys.e
contpuspce OF tao rystsm in existence previously,
ard Substitution In It's place of the nav mpe Of sell
NJ A secon1 II
the sale Of quos after the lat O. May vas not intended
to prohibited by the s.ts Of 1924 and 1927 the prov
the nd section before referred TO- would %
and the direction that IL should take ellie on
the Isl Of May would have been ide provision Il,
during hat period, from the lst Of May to the 4th OF
july ibs Lselature intended to repeal AL previous re
s,rist ops on the sale Of liquors there would be
cessty for providing mode by which the sale o. sp'r
liquors for mech srical medicinal ana NctAmsntAi
purposes could b. els rted There be but con-
clusiop the intent Of The legislature IN this
tar and that w. that ths rssEictive provialoos Of the
acts of 1924 and 1927 should remain unreoead by the
act OF 1860 The other penalty sought BE- recovered
Ia under the ordinance OF tna Mayor &c OF New York
he ID.
1898. The eh.Dcs charged to hsva been committed is
that OF ling strong and spruous liquor in the city o.
obbt by the ordiDsnce referred to. That esdn
orbids any person from selling by retail any strong
spr uous liquor To be drank the premises Of tbs
stDer and from selling any such liquor to be drank o.
Suncay Besoes, there 10 70 penalty given by that
covered herein The mode of colIes.Dg il ia pointed
ont in The ordinance to BE- by proceeding before ma
gistrate on complaint and the fine Is TO be posed
conviction by tho magistrate, and inkdsfaul OF pay
meot the offender 10 to be committed to prison. IL
therefore to enquire whether the net OF
Council. 1t IS sufficient for THE say, tna: there
10 penalty provided by inst orcinauos for which this
there charged in this comp amt for witch psnsy y
sought to be recovered VIZ: selling strong and spirit
uons liquors without license, l 6ni no provision
either IN The acts of the State the ordinance tue
Common Council to warrant recovery. The sales pro-
| bibied by the statute are
Selling in qu us over five gallons without
Selling y retail s.y s,S.s :5 sprtuoa,s M9aor to
q. Selling BY fetal! sny strong or s,irtaoas liquors
to be er. Tx en- the sellers premises Act Of 1927.
,Ss s's 2. y
sold to BE- drank on the premises does not sppar 10
the case, does the defendant stmt sufficient to
bpg bin within either OF the prohibitions. The al
nison does not within the provisops Of the
ord,nsnce Of the Common Council and ii it did have
H. - 4bo< hat Jfw
recoverable in this form Of action. Our conclusions
npon This case, then, are
and 1927 not repealed by the second and twenty
9Th sections Of the act of 1885, previous to the 4h Of
D. That the ordinance of the Commoa Council for the
eHectusi enforcing Of the excise laws dosa not
mIose any penalty thst can be recovered IN TINS form
ceeona before mssistrate.
g. That the complaint in this case 'ets up different
offences for which differ emit penalties ara TO bs imp sed
and vhh ars 10 be collected IN different modes Of pro
seeing.
t.o occasions two sales alleged 10 ths
plant, is not sufficient to wsrrAnt Judgment sgs,nst
him for the larger penalty.
charged under the ordinance Of the Common Council
upon Which NO pepsy can be recovered BY action the
| In this case kr. Toml'nson was counsel for Walker.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK HERALD.
The decision OF the Court Of Commoa Pleas Of this city
and county this Day apneancsd in the Of the Cor
poratoD sgainst Robert Waller requires Few remarks
irm ne by way OF explanation That was An acroo
brought to test the question whether the old pensy
YorA had been abrogsted or repealed by tns act
Of April O. 1885, commonly called the PrOhbit,ry Law
The upon his appearance in court admttet
the selling Of liquor chsrssd in the complaint which
fact sso proved by two policemen, and neither
the trial before IN his argument the appeal
attempted to rass the technical point which hes
discovered BY the Court Of Common Plea and upon
which the Judgment has been reversed. The
presented appeal BY arrangement and consent OF
counsel both sdeP, merely to obtain distinct adj"
d,catioD upon this important question snd II was no: 10
be tpaIed that the Court OF Common Pleas would feel
compelled 70 enter into question which tho eminent
counsel for the defendant had not sought TO embAr
the Gaze by raining or discussing. The grcand upoa
placed VAS IN fact obviatsd tbe trial. nasmuch
second count Of the complaint foun,ed the r-c.nt
Cooperation ordinance then abandoned BY the Cor
ftpeant Mr.. romlnson, BEEN anxious to defend
this suit merely technical grounds rs the Court o.
Common Pleas to decide it grn0 sails 10 the de-
this objection in the notice Of appeal In which c.ss The
would have set forth the facts upon which de-
| esion could have been ntelhgiby made. As it IS
take the liberty c saying that the reversal Of this adg
nept for the resson assigned extra Judicial act
by TIE court TO which this appeal taken and whose
inquiries restricted to the matters obe,tsd in the
notice Of appel am, howevsr GLAD TO 30 rslsnred.
by the opinion given in this case that the important
nsstion which II desired to have de'erm'nef By
this suit decided by according to the law Of the
land. Most respectfully, your osedient servant,
WIN. B. MECH,
| Justice Third Distri,t Court
The Escape Of Lewis Baker.
STATEMENT OF CAPT. CHIeMkE, OF TIE BRIG rsA
BELLA JEvETr, IN RkFERENCE TO LEWIS BAKEs,
CHANGED WITH THE MURDER OF WIN. POOLE
About the second day Of March, think, stranger
board the brig, then lying at Jersey CITY AMI
sad he had friend in feeble health, who wanted to 20
r.. ~ n.-A