The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-11-03
COURT or SPECIAL SESSIONS.
Deelvjsn Of the Recorder In the Case OF
Coleman L Stets0n.
THE DEFENDANTS DISCHARGED,
kc Gc., 10.

Warren and his counsel.
The Recorder read the following decson:-
The complaint in this is made under the first
sion Of intemperance, pauperism and crime" passed
April 1856 It is claimed by the prosecutian that the
That the defendants have kept deposited in
toxcating liquor in place where By law they were
Prohibited BY the act Third Sy selling It Without
Me license prescribed in the second section of the act
also contended BY the prosecution upon the ques
within the exception contained in the first section Of
the statute If the Court hold imported liquors ex
the limited time at my disposal from pressing official
duties, would permit, and the result Of that exami-
nation has been to convince me that the charge
not be snbstantiaed-not for want Of evidence, but
for the reason that under the law there can be no
conviction and have come TO this conclusion after
y careful pernsal Of an argument presented by the
counsel for the prosecution, Of great ability, indus
try and research All that be sail In favor of
me law applicable to the facts Is embodied in that
previous decision Of this Court should be disturbed
The argument presents questions not nece ssarly in
embraces every possible question that arise
der she law The only question necessarily involved
n this arises under the first section to the
construction Of the latter clause Of the section,
which is in these words: "This section shall not APP
ply TO liquor the right to sell which, in this State, Is
given BY any Law or treaty of the United States"
Mis-, Of course refers to imported liquors. Upon
tAe question Of the exemption Of imported liquor
from the operation Of the act, have doubt what
ever. The exemption clause is free from all ambi-
suity, and cannot agree with the counsel for the
prosecution, that the 22d section explains and
tols the first section, that must take the
title Of the act and the I'D together the
purpose Of arriving at the true intent and meaning
construction Of remedial statute where the Ian
gusgc ambiguous but courts have no right in
on the Part Of the legislature in passing an act
which Is expressly negatved by ambiguous language
order ., to reconcile the provisions Of the acc with
struc'ion of remedial and penal statutes. Ia the
one ease they should be iberally construed in favor
q the person or property 10 he. affected by them.
therefore, Il it was the in etoa the Legislature to in
elude both domestic and ed liquors that intention
not being expressed canro re- Inferred By Judicial con
uction, for all infere must be in favor Of the most
liberal construction Of penal statute thai is in deroga-
tion Of the common law aud which affects in this
claimed by the prosecution that zone part Of
statute must be construed IN reference to another
necessity the part of the prosecution for nvok
ing that rule of construction The latter part of the
they both stand together. BY the second sec
Non "no person except citizen of good moral cha
he intends to sell intoxicating liquor, and who is not
pedr the keeper OF interested in any boarding
vctnaiing house grocery or fruit store any barroom,
confectionery inn other place Of public entertainment
the keeper of or interested in any museum theatre
or other place Of public amusement; the cap
TAIN S agent clerk or servant Of. Of or on
ever" can sell intoxicating liquors. and before such
citizen and eector sell it he must procure the
hon. It is perfectly clear, il the clause as to i'm
porters in the 22d section had been omitted, that
far the letter Of the statute Is concerned import
could not have sold liquor without violating the
express terms Of the act, unless they obtained the
license, and that license could not have been OBJ
tanned unless they citizens and electors Of good
moral character. Now, II will not be alleged that
importer must be citizen ecctor, person of
the duties imposed BY The state I Is
gslature cannot enact valid laws that will interfere
With the commercial laws of the United States,
linn
in the twenty section ia order to make the act
on IT. face one that would not conflict with the laws
~ defined by the decisions Of the United States
courts. The right to import is extended to all,
vhoa Gs,, reference to citizenship or character Ard
dent to that right the right to SELL This being
eeded, was not the provision as to the sale by i'm
order avoid conflict with the laws Of the United
States, and with the decisions Of the United States
ported liquors in original packages Without any re.
straint by State legislation l think it inserted
as declaratory of the existence Of that right but
II certainly $50 far the simple right to sell
was involved), wholly unnecessary that right being
existing right, Independent Of State legislation.
strictions in The second section is necessary, if the
letter of the statute Is to be regarded the law of
the the, land az so Is therefore clear that the Prov
stand without conflicting There is stll another
view to be taken Of this law. For aught know
exception In the FIRST section for the express pur
pose Of authorizing free traffic in imported liquors.
have been materially modified or perhaps never have
necome law. But !. is enough for courts to know
That penal statutes must be strictly construed, and
that when the language is clear, il the law Is consti
rational they must give to the language its ordinary
meaning In other words courts c,nnot infer intent
aerent, which, in this case, be done in order 70
meet the views Of the counsel for the prosecution
the claim that i sueisns for them t.
simply prove the sale Of liquor by the deiendan'
and that the defendants claim the benefit Of the
tieo, they must prove themselves within it, In 9TH:
1,.s that the defendants must prove that the liquor
ala was ,.nored liquor In all criminal the pro
cation must pr that the crime charged has been com
lifted by The accuses. If imported lnor - excepted BY
The act Il Ia no offence to sc,. IL aud unless the prose
ton prove that the liquor sold vas not imported hfuor
fence If nU !. be conceded that imported liquor i g.
eepted from the operation Of the act, indictment,
charging that the defendant had sold liquor merely,
would be held bad demurrer. An indictment
charging . statutary offence, mus contain . specific
avsrment charging the offence created by the statute
ut contended that the section OF the act
settles the question to the proof It Is true that
ton contains this extraordinary language "Upon the
trial Of any complaint commenced under any provision
Of this act proof Of the sale OF liquor shall be sufficient TO
sustain averment OF unlawful sale; and proof OF
delivery shall be prima acie evidence of sae This
tion consider of the most excepti0nable en-
bodied in leg i've act 1t Il in direct conflict with
The settled principles Of the rules OF evidence that have
existed for centuries. and have received the sanction Of
the most profound legal minds. II Is in direct con-
nict with those time honorcd decisions which have
for ages thrown their protection around human
liberty. The theory Of practice in criminal
cases 10 that the accused shall be presumed in
uocent until proved guilty. The theory under this sta
tute is that the accused shall be presumed guilty until
by his oath he lays the foundation 10 be permitted TO
prove his innocence The judiciary cannot enforce
principle hostile to personal liberty so at variance
with common justice and humanity. consider this
ton upon this point wholly inoperative, AMI until my
action with regard to IL IL controlled by the decision Of
court Of derner resort shall not be influenced by IT,
But the question except Incidentally does not arise In
the under consideration The evidence shows that
the liquor sold imported liquor All the allegations
enlarged by the prosecution sustained the proof and
the case Is presented far the facts concerned
eney ee from any embarrassment, and the questions
q law are all absorbed in the main question the consd
suuonay OF the act The counsel COR the prosecution
contend That the legislature have the right 10 regulate
the sale Of Intoxicating liquor that the legislature
has always exercised that authority and that the statutes
give fuu power 70 regulate excise tayerns groceries &c.
and therefore the act under consideration presents M
new features; involves novel questions. concede
that the legislature have the right TO enact excise laws
but under certain restrictions, and Within certain
limits, which limits are circumscribcd by q higher
power than that OF the Legislature. It Is a sscat
mistake TO suppose that the legislature has sove