, 1873-03-12
THE LAW COURTS.
The Motion to Qaasll Tho Indictments
Against Liquor Sellers for gcnd'
lug Liqucr to lncbriates
0YcrrAlca.
Petitions in Bankruptoy--Di gging
Sand from Mortgagod Land--
United States Court
Items.

Items.
Notes From All tho Courts--St1tts
Instituted Yesterday.
1udro Williams ycsterday delivered tho opfn-
Inn nf tho Judgcs Of lilo Circuit Court (Judgo |
noott, 1issontiug) On Tho sui1oiency Of tho III |
1,ctments before tic Criminal Court OF lsquor |
e6lIors, for ronting liquor to lnebriatcu. His
1Tonor roforrcd to tue Cases nB coming undor !
tho soyoral scc.sona Of tho liquor Inv passed by
tho lnst Legis1aturo. 1,ho motion to quaall had
hoen made beca,,go tho defendants hold that tho
proeocution Ind not at1ducod proof to show thai
The partioa accused know tho pcrsons to whom
tho liauor wnp sold ns habitnal drunkaftls In
TINT court two Judges had ruled differently On
that worry question, which was cue Of oxcecdng I
interest. lIc (Judgo Will!alnB) thought that
for tho hancfit OF tho public and for
tho guidance OF the lawyorH, tho rulings OF
tho Court should DO, If possible uniform. Iho
Prosecuting Attorney should have de1neu f'tlo
to 20 by, and, Tor thoae ronsons, ho (tho Court
had thought hopt to conBult with bis hrothrou Of
tho Circuit Court, 10 that gopd understanding
might bo arrived ut. 1Ic la1, accordingly, pre-
ecutod tho question to tho five Judges of the
Circuit Court. On ono point all five woro unanl- /
.moue; TINT was that the Indictment In caoh case
was sufficient and good IN law. If it covered tho
meaning Of the atatute, md fully interpreted lta
language. Tho Supreme Court OF this state haa
ovor aud over again decided that If the lndlot-
mont Clearly presented tho statutory meaning,
xhon it WAS sufficient. PerhapH ho might
atop at that point md eay nothing fur
cher on tho subjoct, but, doubtless,
tho parties concerned. and tho public would
vlsh to have eomo definite ruling Of tho Court
upon tho question at issue. Wcl1, IN tho con-
sultation, four Judges Of the Circuit Court
(Brother Booth dinsenting) had concluded TINT
1t was necessary for aome good proof to bo
shown TINT tho parties selling tho liquor wore
aware Of tho characters Of tho poruons to whom
it was sold. It should boproyen TINT the saloon
keeper knew tint tho party to whom ho was ecll-
Ing was minor, was intoxicated, or was m
babitual d11lnInrd. 1t might, on tho other hand,
a3o objected that it was sufficient for tho prose-
nutioh to provo tho Ralo, and that, as resnlt OF
the sale Reraons 19sao 3 +dt intoxicated s Inc
and thoro must bo proof Of malignant intent, dr
criminal rccklenuncss, in the sale OF liquor. Tint
was necessary to bo proven. Tho more selling
ity Of the matter. was, after al lawful, made 80
by the Inv Of Illinois. It was mado legal By
statute license to coll liquor was iasuel under
that 6tntute, and, If the net waH lawful, to nuke
must bs sold to parties specifically mentioned in
the statute as excepted from those to- when
such salo could legally bo made. The Court
could see no reason Why intent to do harm should
not be proven BY the Pooplo against t. party % o.
in justice, should bo required to prove
that Tho saloon-kecpcr knew he was
doing IN unlawful act. Tho liquor
1aw Of illinois was, IL roaliiy but the enboai- @
during tho ycar 1861. Two decisions OF tho Su-
preme Court Of that Stnto had ruled TINT knowl-
cdgo of tho condition or character Of customers
decisions had been in existence aomo 1s
yeara. It was oyilont that aaia decisions woro
known to our Legislature, and, therefore, that
rule Of law should bo taken into consideration.
that knowledge should DO fully proven. As in
other criminal caBes, circumstances should bo
taken into confederation BY the jury. It
had been argued in the Judges CON
perance lay. THO Court could not SO under
stand it. For instance, whore the seller Of
liquor ia notified by friends OF minors or inobrl-
atoB not to sell to such, and, in doiance Of Buch
Ing, then that would 10 proof auhioient to hold
the offender for trial. There was hardly any
difficulty in showing that man was an ha1,itunl
lrunknrd. II ho lay around the saloon, or in
LUG ublbluOEuOUu EucI6O1, lCE GeTGI0l uAgS VI
weeks, in IN inobrlated or aoms.inebriated con-
dition, that would constitute habitual drunk.
ennoBa. Ho would repeat that lo could not
soe how tho opinions Of the majority Of the
OF the Temperance low. Tho Court could not
override Veu-cstablishod presidents. -Four
Judges, as already Btated, had agreed in tho view
EXPRESSED by him (1udgo Wiliams), that proof
should DO HGown. Judge Farwell would succeed
On the criminal bcnch, aud Judge Treo would
succeed him. Both theso Judges had concurred
In tho opinion now EXPRESSED: Judge Booth
would hold N opinion ontrely CONTRARY, but TINT
Court. The majority Of tito bench lad thus
expressed their opinion, md it only remained
TOR him to oyeErule the motion to quash tho in
dictments.
THE BRANDT CASE UP AGAIN.
new movement was made III this caEc, yes
terday, in the United States Circuit Court. Bev-
eral new and important questions have boen
raised IL tho case, aud u tho procoedings4 have
be remembered that O. petition III bankruptcy
was filed against Brandt by lis creditors. His
.Yifo was made party to tho petition, and m IN
junction, obtained against her restraining he1
from collecting, the reuts Of the real estate
which real eatate, 1t WAS claimed, was a eff
from the husband to the wifa, a,-beng conveyed
by the huabaud to third purity who conveyed
to the wife. It ,"as clalmcd by tho potitionors
husband. it was not covered by tho statute o
1861, aud hiH creditors were entitled to til,
Income. a motion to dissolve this injunction
was oycrsulod by Judge ylodgett in the unitet
BtateB District Court. Tho counsel Tor &ra
Brandt then took tho question up before Judg
Dru,n1nond, Of tho United States Circuit Court
by petition, for royiow. Upon ths shcaring afte
full asgumout, Judge Druulmond refused to en-
tirely dissolve tho injuncuouj but upon th
poiut being inado by Mr. Lila, that if tho credit
Dra were entitled to the income under the com
mou law, the wife, Under tho common law, Wa
first entitled to her support out Of it,-being til
'iwifos equity Of q settlement tho Court dc
cidcd TINT she was 80 entitod, and that tho In
junction ahonld bo modified. aud allowed th
petition to staud, so that after tho aljNdicatio
Of bankruptcy, u roferenco might be hau to ~
certain how much Of the income was ueceAHal
for her support.
On yesterday, Mrs. Drandt'a oounuo
Mr, John W. Ella aud hIr. ). D.