, 1873-06-15
FORFEITED LICENSES.

6CnQC0O"7 "AQ WAS Sent I'D FT1E0A
for Selling Liquor After the Mayor
Revoked Ills License, Applies for
1nben2 C9rpus-.C.isto Of the Argument
ON Both Siuea.
Yesterday morning, in the Criminal Court, be-
fore Judge Rogers, the case Of Francis schu-
chow came up, involving the 1ong-vexed ques-
ton OF the virtue Of the Sunday Liquor law
Sohuchow sold liquor after the Mayor revoked
his license and he Was sant to prison tor five
days. In the absenco Of Mr. John Van Arnum,
prisoners counsel, the argument for writ OF
habeas corpus, to release him from duEanee vilo,
was conducted by Nissen and Barnum, his asso-
ciates in the case.
Mr. Ba1num, having asked for = continuance
Of the case, which Was refused, proceeded with
his argument. which Was aa follows:
Tho following were the points argued for relator by
Mr. Barnuu, of Ntssan l. Baxnum: That ucense Is
propeEty, valuable thing dght not to be lawiessiy
taken away; that revocation Of ucense il tanta-
mount to- and, in fact, aoxftttuys; that municipal
corporation cannot enforce a ordinances by meana Of
forfeiture 9nless e1pressy authorized 70 e Do by IT,
charter that tho Charter Of Chicago eonfern upon the
municipal authorities the right and power to ro7oto L.
and eaunsrsed eausss, not not 81 s1eeedins aVa n IL
t. a,or{sa2 ss; I'd 3sSs
the sale q liquors on sunday j. not included that
where city charter, as that Of Chicago, prescribca
the means By which the ordinances shall be enforced
only those means can be resorted to by tho city and
whare such prescribed means conatst OF d1s and I'M
prtsonmont, no forfeiture eau be euperadded by ety
ordinance. All other means than those mentioned In
the charter clearly excluded The corporation
cannot take such dangerous powcrs 50 derogatory to
common rights Of citzens, by Implication or pro
with tho charter void, and that thoagh dAalee In
liquors takas license upon the faco Of which It
lis stated that ho shall suffer revocation OF
hIs Hcense In he violates any ordinance
OF the city, past future, he nevertheless IL not
bound by such rcettas If the ordinance for violation
Of which hia License is taken AWAY IL unauthorized aud
void. And although the hcensee have given bond
containing covenants to keep all ordinances past and
future, penalty Of losing his Heen:e, such bond s
not binding, a. the city authorities had power to
required The unauthorized contracts Of tho corpora
ton with the hcensee, be argued, though made un-
der ordinance void and the prisoner, for 7ola
Hon OF the terms Of his heense could not b robbed of
It. His former license therefore unaffected by tho
attempted revocation, and he ought to Be discharged.
Gen Stiles, on behalf OF the city met the pofnta
urged by counsel for the relator at some length,
citing numerous authorities in support Of hia
arguments. He hold that the infractioa OF tho
Sunday Eiquor law brought the saloon-keepar
within the reyocatory power Of the Mayor, inas-
immoral, and immortality comes within the
causes for which q revocation Of ncense can be
effectod He eachewed thf point that q license
was property, and cited ~authorities On behalf Of
this opinion. He would bot take the ground |
that the license WAS \ contract 4 number OF au-
thorities we're cited by the General to prove that
tho Mayor had vested in him full power to take |
away licenses, -
The Court took the matter under advisement.