The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1859-08-02
Another Decision Upon the Liquor

- - Law. -
Judge Perkins has had another habeas
CORPUS liquor case before him, in which he
fully sustained the law The petitioner, am
adult white male citizen, having been con-
yicted before Justice of the Peace for re-
failing liquor without license and committed,
and claiming discharge on the grounds
that the liquor law is unconstitutional, and
the refusal of the County Commissioners to
grant license whenSall the conditions of
the law were offered to be complied with,
the judge declared the law to be constitu-
tional, and that the remedy for relief upon
the other objection did not rest in the action
before him. The petitioner was, therefore,
remanded. In his decision the Judge re-
marked he was not prepared to say that the
liquor law of 1859 was unconstitutional in
any particular. l-s..s.=
The following is the opinion Of the
Judge:
Joseph Grothans, an adult white male
citizen, was convicted, before a Justice of
the Peace of Wayne county, of retailing
without license, and committed He OBJ
tanned a writ of habeas corpus, and claims
to be discharged from his imprisonment on
two grounds LIST, That the liquor law is un-
constitutional. I'd. Because he says that he
applied for license, presented to the Com
missioners certificates of his good moral
character, offered to pay the amount pre-
scribed for license, and to execute a suffi-
cient bond, &c, but that commissioners,
nevertheless, refused him license. am not
prepared to say that the liquor law of 1859
is unconstitutional in any particular.
Under the decision in Reed Us, the State,
at the present term of the Supreme Court, l
should not feel at liberty to say that incon-
gruous subjects were united in this law, or
that it did not conform to its title. The
business of retailing liquors in small guam
titles, to be drank upon the premises in
which they are sold, has always been re-
garded as tending to draw together idle
persons in such numbers and in such condi-
tions, as might produce noise and tumult,
perhaps breaches of the peace in short, nui-
sances and, hence, like shows, rope-dancing
exhibitions, billiard saloons, &c, to be sub
ject to stringent regulations on the part of
the State, tending 10 prevent such evil.
The power of regulation exists under the
present Constitution. As condition upon
which these pursuits may be followed, a Ii
cense may be required. t...f =.
The Statute is imperative that license
shall be granted to every citizen of this
State upon compliace with certain conditions.
The law is general and uniform. Such Ii
cense will authorize the person possessing it
to sell upon six days in the week, and no
more. 1t does not extend to Sunday, and a
sale on that day is Illegal. But every per-
son who applies TO the Commissioners for a
license, and complies, or offers to comply,
with all the requirements of the law, is en-
titled to license. The commissioners are
bound TO grant il.
In this case the petitioner asserts that he
did comply, and oilor to comply with the
law; and having done SO, and been refused
license, he claims that he cannot be pun
ished for selling without,a license.
Perhaps, though no opinion is given upon
the point, if the facts asserted are true, the
position assumed by the petitioner is correct.
But where and how is it to be determined
whether the party did really comply, and
offer to comply with the whole law? How
is is to be ascertained whether the Commits
sioners illegally rejected his petition? Per-
haps it was his duty, when the Commission
ers rejected his application, to appeal to the
Circuit or Common Pleas Court. If not,
and the fact Of the refusal of license, was
one which could avail in prosecution for
selling without license, it should have been
pleaded before the justice. Perhaps it was
,xl1a 1A1 -. -
so, the conviction of the defendant was
right. And it may be observed, certificates
would not be proof of character. The
Commissioners might require the testsmony
of witnesses. 1t is clear that this objection
cannot be raised upon writ of habeas
corpus. The law being constitutional, the
writ upon the conviction before the justice
under which the officer holds the petitioner
in custody, being regular, is a sufficient
cause for the detention in custody.