The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1876-02-15
THE STATE LIQUOR LAW.
DECISION OF THE STATE ST.
PREME COURT.
An Act of Hospitality not to be
Punished,


in the circuit court of Bureau county,
against Jacob Albrecht, for an alleged
violation of chapter 43, title 'Drau-
shops" r. s. 1874. p. 43S,
The title Of the act in full is IAN act to
provide for the licensing of and against
the evils arising from tie sale of intoxi-
eating liquors"
The sixth section of this act provides
as follows: whoever, by himself, or his
agent, or servant, shall sell or give intoxi
eating liquors to any minor without the
written order of his parent, guardian, or
family physician, or to any person intoxi-
Gated, or who is in the habit of getting
intoxicated, shall, for such offense, be
fined not less than $40 or more than 800,
and imprisoned in the county Jail not less
than ten nor more than thirty days"
The previous sections define: |, "dram-
shop" q provides penalty for selling
without license; 3, how license may be
granted; d, the form of the license-the
rights under it and how revoked for vio-
lation of the provioions of the act, or by
keeping 6isorderly, ill-governed house
or place of resort for idle or dissolute
persons, or by allowing any Illegal gam
ing in the dram shop or in any house or
place adjacent thereto; 5, provides for
taking bonds Of the dram-seller, and how
suit may be brought therein.
This statue is highly penal in its pro-
visions, and is emphatically penal stat
ute, and according to recognized canons,
must be constructed strictly, keeping in
view the great central object the legisla-
ture had In view in the enactment and the
evils to be prevented
The title of the act in the revision of
1874; Dram shops" and every section is
leveled against them with view to their
suppression, for they are licensed to sell
intoxicating liquors, and pay large sums
of money into the town or county treasury
for the privilege. The provisions of the
act are aimed at such. What then, under
this view of the state, should be the con
struction to be put on the sixth section
Can it be, should it be other than this:
that whoever keeps dram-shop shall
sell?
The leading facts in the case are, that
the defendant was the owner and pro-
prietor of a brewery, selling the manu-
facture by the key or barrel to anyone
who wished to purchase, and for the
privilege he became liable to pay the gov
eminent of the United States large sums
of money demanded by the internal
revenue law, to be appropriated to the
payment of our government debt. He
kept no dram-shop, nor did he sell this
beverage by the small to be drank on the
premises.
One day about the last of July or first OF
August, 1874, to Charles Dewey, the
prosecutor, it is alleged defendant sold OF
gave one or more glasses of beer. He
came to see defendant, who was in bad
health and nearly blind, lying on lounge
in his house apart from his brewery, fol
the purpose of getting renewal Of a lease
of some lots at Ohio Station, on which he
had erected hay press. He was &C
companied by Mr.. Kyle, an attorney at
law, who was wanted by Dewey to draw
the papers. When Dewey and XVII
reached the house, and found defendan
in this condition, they also found Andrew
Ross there and Samuel Conner, tn,
principal witnesses for the prosecution. -
Ross business there, he being preacher
was to aid Conner in purchasing some lot
of defendant, and to see about the two lot
on which Dewey had his hay press, for til
purpose Of building mill upon them
Ross had talked about this with defendan
when Kyle and Dewey came in. Dewe
wanted to buy the lots, as it would be ex
pensive to move his press, which had COS
him $1,000. Ross, in his testimony, say
he supposes Dewey thought he was tryin
to get these lots, and he got mad and talk
ed pretty loud, and was little boozy-
Conner, on his cross examination, say
he wanted to buy some lots; Kyle an
Dewey came in and went off together
Dewey was considerably excited;
thought he would loose considerable
in moving his hay press, and wa
much excited at Ross. In his direct ex
animation he says Dewey seemed it'll
tight; was intoxicated; called for bee
twice. Some person went into anothe
room and brought it out and set the bee
and glasses on the table, and all were in
vited to partake. Ross, being preacher
declined, never having drank intoxicatin
liquors. Conner never drank anything in
toxicating and never was drunk.
The opposing testimony of Kyle, Dewe
and defendant shows quite concusivel
Dewey was not intoxicated; that the bee
was sent for to the brewery, and proffere
by defendant to his visitors as on act {
hospitality to neighbors and friends Sure
ly it was not such an act as this, tn
statute in question was intended to punis
by imprisonment in the county Jail. 1t ha
nothing of the odor of dram-shop abou
it, and was but mere courtesy, whic
this law was not designed to reach.
one invites his friends to dine with hin
and generous wine which cheers the hear
IS pressed upon his guests, lone of whor
har pens to be excited with wine when h
came there, is the host to be incarcerate
for giving this most bibulous guest an ad
ditional glass? We do not think the statut
should bear such construction The Gu
ture of the grape is recommended by tn
moralist and the economist, and the expires
sion of it's juices into wine Would it b
held an offense punishable by fine anC
Imprisonment should the vintner from hi
wine press fill flagon and serve it to hi
guests in his own house at his table
Where is the difference in brewer pre-
senting tankard under the similar cir
cumstances? We cannot believe this la,
was designed to punish these acts?
The testimony, we think, is sufficient t
show Dewey, though highly excited q
what he believed to be the interference @
Ross to get those lots, was not intoxicated
He swears positively he had drank nothinJ
that day, and before dinner but three O
four glasses OF beer, and that he was no
intoxicated in the slightest degree. Their
is not the slightest proof Dewey was in til
habit OF getting intoxicated.
A jury was waived in this case, and W
think the finding of the court was agains
the clear preponderance OF the evidence
and the case made was not one contem