National Republican., 1873-02-07
DRINKS AND DRUGS.
NOT A Law, BUT A STATUTORY MISTAKE.
The Sunday Law In II. Application to
Apothecaries-whHt Can be Sold on
sundny-Judgc spcips Opinion.

Tho Sunday Law In IL. Application to
ApothecRries-what Can be Sold on
sundny-JudRc Suclps Opinion.
The case Of t. J. Taulmsn, a druggist, called
before the Police Court for selling on Sunday,
which has excited considerable interest, was de-
cldcd yesterday. Judge Smell gave the following
opinion;
Defendant Is charged with a violation Of the
Sunday law, by selling as an apothecary articles
for pront which were not medicines, on sunday.
This information Is based upon an ordinance
Sixty-secOnd Council, A. d. 1864. The facts to
establish the offence were sufficiently proved,
but Il is contended on the part Of the defence
formlty TO the requisltons Of law, and IL not en-
titled TO he recognized and enforced In the courts.
II ls TO be observed that, as printed, II appears
without date or approval, and In this differs from
all other ordinances as they stand in the same
volume OF ordinances for that year by refer
ence 70 the charter OF the city Of Washington we
ind the following; "All ordinances or acts
passed by the two boards shall be sent to
the Mayor for his appreciation, and, when
approved by him, shall be obligatory ~ such.
But II the mayor shall not approve Of any Ordl-
nance or act, so sent to hip, he shall return the
same within Ave days, with his reasons In writ
ing therefor; and II two-thirls Of both boards on
TecSnnneratlon h Thereof agree to pass ne same
approved II; but N the two boards shall, by their
adjournment, prevent It's return, the same shall
ngt 6e obligatory" (see charter, title councils,
Webb's Digest, rage Is2.) An ordinance, after
passing both boards, must be sent to the mayor
and approved by him, or, n not approved, re-
turned with his objections in writing within i've
days, and then, upon receiving the vote Of two
thirds OF each board, II becomes obligatory.
THIS ordinance was confessedly not approved by
the mayor. The record shows the signature Of
the presidents Of both boards, hut no signature
OF the mayor. There Is no evidence that II was
returned by the mayor with his objections In
writing, and passed by the boards by the re-
quislte twO-thirds vote, and thus become Obllga-
tory. II could not have become q law In any
other mode. No paro evidence has been offered
or explanation given In any way showing that
the terms Of the charter In respect 10 the passage
Of ordinances have been compiled with, and il Is
more than sOubtful whether parol evidence Of
approval would be suiiicient, N offered. Dillon,
In his new and excellent treatise on municipal
corporations, y. 2I3, sec. 2II, lays II down that
"in the absence Of record evidence Of the pas
sage OF an ordinance, II Is not competent to es-
tablish US adoption by extrlns'c EVIDENCE" and
(ken.) y. 2o5.
: Another point has been made in this case, that
this ordinance II II ever had any legal effect, has
been abroRated so far As ApOtheCaries and drug
glsts are concerned by Joint resolution OF the
6oth Council, approved May 70, 1868. The essen
tlal part Of this resolution h that II shall be law
ful for any apOthecaTy or druggist to sell On any
day Of the week any article embraced In the
p,d'erid nlodiod, or not prohibited by an ApOthe-
carys or druggists license. In this resolution u
Will be seen by examination reference Ia made
to an act passed December 2, 1864, In relation to
apothecafios and druggists, and the same is de-
clared TO be repealed. No act Of the date or title
appears In tho acts Of 1854. during the month Of
December or other month bf the same year. 1t
has not been shown thdt the articles charged to
have been sold are within the license OF an
apotheCary or druggist and little strength to the
defendants case Is furnished by this resolution.
Subsequent statutes, clearly rcpugnant, may re-
peal former ones, according TO the well-known
maxim: "Lcges pOsicriOres pi0rcs contrdrfds dbrO-
CANT" But this resolution Is too indefinite and
uncertain to enttlc Il TO this effect and the case
Is Therefore dismissed upon the ground that there
is no proper proof that the ordinance on which
the Information rests can become obligatory, not
having been approved by the mayor as the char
ter requires.