The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1867-10-01
The Levi ton Club Case in the Supreme
Rf.

The Levi TON Shse III tue supreme
Court.
MIR. EDIToR:-I noticed in SATURDAYS Press
an article from the Lewiston journal in refer
ence to the recent trial of one of members Of
the Lisbon street Club" as Common seller
of Intoxicating liquor" before Judge Walton.
at Auburn. l happened to be present during
the delivery OF the Judges charge and having
nothing else to do, took notes of it. as the sub
]ect was one that has tor some time interested
me. AS the Journals summary does not quite
10 MS hohor Justice in some particulars,
thought it might interest your readers to give
the Judges instructions ON the points raised in
this case, which is quite new in this STAGE, and
indeed, so far as l know in the United States.
The Judge said that the law defined COM
mon seller as one who sells commonly, habitu-
ally, frequently. That a man so selling for a
single day would be a common seller, though
he might never have sold before or afterwards
He was not prepared to say that he might not
be so if he sold for five minutes Indeed, he
doubted not that man might sell enough in
one minute to make himself common seller,
say at a camp-neeting, if they should rush up
to his tent. He would not say that it requires
any particular number of sales more THAN one
In regard to this case, he should be obliged
to assume certain facts in order to make him
self understood, but the jury would be careful
to decide for themselves from the evidence
whether the facts were as assumed Assum-
ing, therefore, for the purpose of conveying his
idea, that the club was actually organized ac-
cording to the constitution introduced in evil
dence, that the respondent was one of the orig
inal members and that there were some twenty
others, and that the club actually operated un-
der its organization and according to its con-
stitution, in Lewiston, and that part of its re-
freshments were intoxicating liquors, what is
the law? Who, in the first place, owns the
liquor? Unquestionably the club,-the whole
twenty, collectively, and not each of the TWEEN
ty. When each member pays his S. admission
fee and receives his ticket and key, is there any
change in the property? instruct you that
there is not; it still remains the undivided
and common property. of the club After all
have paid their fees and received their tickets
and keys, is not the property still the property
Of the club? But when any member presents
his ticket, calls Tor glass Of liquor and re-
ceives it into his hand, one of the thirty-six
numbers being punched out, 1 instruct you
that the property in that glass is severed from
the whole and vested in that member SO receiv-
ing it,
ana now can 1t be so vested, except by sale
from the whole to him? He has paid for it in
advance. Can there be purchaser without a
seller? Certainly not any more than child
without father; the terms are correlative
Here there is every element of "a sale. Evil
dence has been introduced of the admission of
new members, and the constitution provides
for the purchase of 81 tickets with seven num-
Ders, by any member who has exhausted his
original ticket; but there is, believe, no evil
dence that ST. tickets were actually sold. The
admission of new members and the delivery of
liquor to them, presents a still stronger case
against the old members. But to avoid all
complication, and to give the respondent the
full benefit of his case, will instruct you that,
leaving the admission of was members entirely
out Of account, and continuing yourselves
wholly to the original members, every delivery
OF liquor to one of the original members was
an unlawful sale, and q sufficient number
would constitute every member of the club a
common rum seller, together with their trea-
snrer and agent.
/ consider this a bald case. presenting no
difficulty, 1t must have been got up without
the aid ofcounsel of any degree of respectable
ity. If such acts az these are suffered, or can
be carried on with impunity, then the law is
failure. .4
On request of Messrs. Goddard and Reade,
the respondents lawyers, Judge Walton said
ne would instruct them that the payment of
the So subscription fee and receipt of the ticket
they did not constitute sale by the rule of the
club, although he was inclined to think they
did. Also that when glass of liquor was de-
lived, the member receiving it was not guilty
OF sale, although all the others would be-
This is the substance of the charge which was
very able and clear as Judge Walton's charges
usually are. 1t will come before the full court
at its next annual session here in July, on
exceptions by the respondent x.