Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1849-1856, 1855-01-04
Supreme Court.
Tuesday, Dec. 26'
The CoEsTITUTioSALITY OF rnE LIQUOR
LAW

TIE CoXsTlTUrIoxALIrY OF rnE LIQuoR
LAW
The State, Jabcz J. Potter complainant,
VS.. James Snow. This was a complaint
against the defendent for Excepting or SUI
fering to be kept on his premises or pos
sessions, or under his charge, ale. wine"
&c. The penalty for this offence Is II fine
of twenty dollars or Imprisonment for thar
" days. Subsequent to the issuing of
this complaint, warrant Of search was
issued under the Oh section of the act up
on which certain liquors found in the pos
session OF the defendant were seized.
In the Court Of Magistrates the defend
ant raised certain const Itonal objections
to the law, and they were certified to the
Supreme Court under the statute, and there
argued by the Attorney General for the
complainant and l.. Salisbury, Esq, for the
defendant.
His Honor Judge Brayton delivered the
opinion of the Cour.
/. The first objection n, that tn, law
provides fer taking private property for
public use without just compensation.
There is 10 ana'ogy between the tai =
ing private property for pu lie use, and ad-
Judging property forfeit for crime, and this
objection is not VALID
2. The act provides that it shall not be
neces ary particularly to describe the kinds
or packages Of liquor to be searched for;
and so conflicts with the constitution, which
requires that search WARRANT shall de-
scribe as nearly as may BE- the persons and
things to BE- seized. But tn, description
may be as certain as the nature of the
things will admit, and yet not describe par
ticularly the kinds or packages Of liquor -
And this objection is not valid.
g. The &C; provides that any amend
mcnts may be made, and SO conflicts with
the constitution, which provides that the
, accused shall be informed of the nature
and cause Of the accusation against him.
| But, an amendment is not new accusa-
tion - anything which amounts to that
ceases to be an amendment, and goes be-
yond what the law authorizes. Besides,
this part Of the act may be void and the
rest valid This objection, therefore, has
10 validity.
4. The act provides. for the destruction
of property seized without any proof that it
was held for sale, and so conflicts with the
constitution, which provides that the accus-
ed slIall not be deprived of life, liberty or
property, unless by the Judgment OF his
peers or the law of the land.
This is valid objection. The act pro-
vdes for the seizure of liquors, and then
| provides that upon the conviction of the
party in whose possession they are found,
OF selling or keeping for sale, liquors of the
| same kind as those seized shall be adludg-
ed forfeit and destroyed ; and no proof is
required that the liquors so seized to be dc .
| stroyed were ever kept for sale. This part
| of the act is unconstitutional.
5. 1t is objected that the act provides for
! two pun,hments for the same offence,
inasmuch as by the 4th section man may
be convicted Of selling, and by the Sth sec
ton may be convicted as common seller
for the same sales. This question cannot
occur in this case and no opinion is given
upon it.
In This case, so far as anything appears
to the Court, there is no objection to the
law or form of proceeding.
The result of the decision is, that III the
particular case before the Court the pro-
ceedngs were valid and the conviction was
right ; but by an obiter dictum the Court
pronounce the seizure clause in the Law,
as it now stands, unconstitutional.-Pror.
Journal.