The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-10-21

MfIler'S executor as. Commonwealth, and
Barrett's administrator Us. Same, 9th Grat-
tan, Il 15, says q There are statutes which
from thefrvery nature exclude corpd pdrations
from the meaning Of the word person.
,Slseh, for instanee, are all statzttes declaring
a person commits ting cert ain acts guilty OF
"a felony, o,. other criminal gfeaees, and
a6iring certain punishment for the offence.
In sa.ch cases, and Others that fnsgii be
named, corporations, from the Uery nature.
of the act itse!f, are not included by the.
acorG 4 person for uery obUioss Teas0Rs.,'
! It seems to, me clearly, then, that this
statute is one in which, from Its very ma
ture, corporations are excluded from being
comprehended By the. word person, and Of
course cannot incur the punishment in
ficted for the violation Of this statute.
There are other provisions OF the act
which are equally conclusive of the fact that
corporations were not within its provi-
sfons-e. g., The latter part OF the second
section provides thatthe bond given!f,y the
applicant for a license shall contain waiver
Of homestead which. is. known to be
personal privilege: (Read us. N. Bank OF
Win, 2Va. L. j., II. In the fifth section,
which requires the dealers to turn the
crank OF. the register, such dealer is desig-
mated by The pronouns he and him only.
The tenth section provides that "any Ii.
censed dealer, for every wiIful failure to
perform any of the duties required OF him
by the fifth section, shall be deemed guilty
OF amisdemeanor," &C., and that IS any per-
son prosecuted for violation OF the fifth
section shall be altoned to TESTIFY in his onn
beha!f." A corporation can only act through
agents, and a principal is only responsible
for the unlawful act Of his agent when such
act is done with his knowledge or assent,
participated in, approved Of, or counte-
nanced by him, which Of course could never
be the case with corporation under this
act. But again. It is
60 A AwELL.sETTLED RULE OF LAW
that in the construction OF statutes not only
must the whole, statute be considered to.
gether. but that the words of the statute are
to be taken in their ordinary and familiar
signitication and import, and regard is to be
had to their general and popular use. pot
ter's Dwar., lS3-4.) Again, that "every
charge upon the subject must be imposed
by clear and unambiguous language"
'sthat penal law is not to be extended by
construction, and revenue laws are OF that
character. In like manner, in the revenue
-
alties are ambiguously or obscurely worded
the Interpretation is in favor Of the subject"
(Plumer's Case, 8 Graft, 647.) Opinion OF
(16 Grattan, 10.)
porations have been the subjects Of indict-
ments (Acts 1928, p. 81; Code OF Crimi-
nal Procedure, p. S6), but as to the kind Of
ftn r,nti nf To- IN ~
which they are indictable, as contemplated
by the statute, it is not very clear, nor is it
necessary now to inquire. I apprehend
that it can't possibly extend beyond those
acts OF commission or omission for which
the punishment prescribed is a pecuniary
fine. But however this may be, am clearly
OF the opinion that
THIS CORPORATION Is NOT LIABLE
to this Indictment, and that it must there
fore be dismissed. -... ...-..
1t. is we'll settled that where a crime is
committed in connection with the affairs OF
corporation the persons guilty OF it,
although officers and agents Of the corporate
body, are personally liable to prosecution.
Il Minors ins., 639; 20 Maine R., 41.)
Whether or not under the arrangement
by which drinks are dispensed by this Club,
as shown in the evidence, to its members
and invited guests through its agent, the
said agent or members are personally liza
Bile to Indictment ?-whether or not this is
one Of the acts which the Legislature con-
tempatcd should be exercised by this cor
poration when it granted its charter "ior
the purpose OF promoting social intercourse
and establishing reading-room !"-arc
questions which do not think it necessary
or proper now to decide. Nor do I think
it proper to express any opinion upon the
utility or proprety Of these institutions,
which was so fully argued before the jury
It is enough for me 10 know that this cor
poration has been chartered by the Legisla
ture; and while it acts within the scope o.
its charter, if the terms OF that instrument
are within the limits prescribed by the Con
stitutions OF the State and OF the United
States, the courts cannot interfere with it
1t is my province to decide cases pending
before me, and for that reason only de-
clned to express any opinion as to the lia
ability OF this corporation to indictment, OF
as to the propriety OF its getting license
when this question was formally submitted
to me by the attorneys for the Common
wealth and the defendant prior to the find
inc OF this indictment by the grand jury.
For the reasons before stated, then, thl:
Indictment must be dismissed.