The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1876-10-18
Dayiess CcriminaI COurt.
COMMONWEALTH,
as. OPINION.
SALMON q SHARP.

Spurious liquors cannot be sold in
this State without license to sell, is
sued from authority rendered compe-
tent by law so 10 do. The law defines
the keeper of a tipping house to be
any person who, not having license
from competent authority, shall sell
spirituous liquors or wine in any guam
tity to be drank in any house or on
premises adjacent thereto.
1t is obvious that the Defendants,
if they so sold, are guilty of the ofense
described by statute and avsrred in the
indictment, which unless they had a
license therefor, which authorized them
to sell liquors.
Ordinance "a of the city of Owens
borO denounces penalties against per-
sons who shall sell spirituOus liquors
without a license from the mayor and
council of said city, and there can be
no doubt that the ordinance can be
enforced and that the authorities of the
city can punish offenders against the
ordinance. While this is the case, and
the authority to enact and enforce the
bylaws conferred upon the city by
legislative act, yet it cannot by reason
thereof be denied that the State has
authority to punish for violation of
her statutes within the local jurisdict-
ion of the city, nor can it be claimed
that a defendant punished by both
jurisdictions is twice put in jeopardy.
Comforting power upon corporation
to pass bylaws and impose penalties,
does not necessarily supersede the
State laws upon the same subject.
"The same actmay constitute an offense
both against the State and the munic-
ipal corporation, and both may punish
it without any violation of any con-
stitutional principle" (CoOley's con-
stitutiOnal Limitations chapter 8, page
1897 This doctrine is so well suited
that it is only necessary to mention it.
The jurisdiction of the State to pun
ish ofenseS against its laws within the
local limits of the city cannot be taken
away by any bylaws or proceeding
under it.
Under the old law, it was required
that the keeper of a coffee house, in
order to be exempt from liability to
law, to have license from both the
State and the municipal corporation.
Under any fair construction of the Re,
vised Statutes, the authority conferred
through the County Clerk was proper
" license, and it has been held that
a party selling spirituous liquors to be
drunk onthe premises was exempt from
the penalties denounced against tip.
ping houses when he had obtained q
license under the general law of the
State, but was amenable to the local
law for u failure to obtain license
from the town authorities. Freeman
VS. Commonwealth s Bush 139.)
The law now seems to lie, that the
County Clerk has no authority tC
grant licenses to keep Coffee house,
| General Statute sec. 8 page 713) and
it seems to be implied in the General
Statutes that towns and cities may dc
so; but while they are permitted SO tC
do, it can only be when they have au
thority conferred upon them by theil
charters. The reason for this is because
it has been deemed advisable for the
best interests ofsociety, that the local
authority alone should determine the
propriety of permitting the establish
ments to exist and what persons may
be allowed to keep them. And it i,
now the law, that no person shall re
tail liquors in any town or city
unless the local authorities in theil
discretion shall authorize it.
1t is also provided that any license
granted by them is rOd and shall b
no protection to the vehder of spirit
uous liquors unless he shall first pay
the State tax as required by law. Il
is therefore clear, that any person, whC
shall keep a coffee house and sell,
liquors therein who has not paid thu
State her revenue and obtained Ii
cense from the municipal authorities
is, under the law, deemed the keeper
ola tipping house and liable to thu
penalties prescribed by law agains
the same.
The law likewise provides that thu
privilege to sell spirituous liquors shall