The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-10-21
NoNDAY MORNING G. OCTOBER 2I. 1878.


saHIxlS(1Slyf1SIGsss sl1IStIGltl1SS1ss
THE asICHMoxD CEuB.
The Indictment Against lie Dismissed.
THE OPINION OF JUDGE GEORGE l.. CHRIS
TAN IN THE oAsE-As CORPORATION OF
THIS KIND HELD NOT TO DE lNDICTABLE
FOR FAILING TO TAKE OUT A LICENSE
TO SELL EIQUoR-THE PERSONAL LA
BILITY OF CLUBHOUSE AGENT OR MEN,
BERs NOT INVOLVED, AND CONSEQUENT
LIZ NoTiDEGTDED.
Judge George L. Christian on Saturday
decided the Richmond Club case as follows ::
| This Is an in dictment against the g Rich
mond Club" a body corporate under the
laws OF this. State, for !" unlawiully selling
wine, ardent spirits, malt liquors, and mix
lures thereof, to be drunk at the place
where sold. without having first obtained
license therefor.o The evidence and argu-
ments Of counsel having been heard, the
attorney for the Commonwealth asked the
Court to give TO the jury an instruction in .
these words: y:If the jury shall believe
from the evidence that the Richmond Club
has not been licensed under the laws of this
Commonwealth to sell wine. ardent spirits.
malt liquors, and mixtures thereof; und IT,
they shall further believe from the evidence
that said Club has within twelve months
last past sold wine, ardent spirits, malt
liquors, or eitherio Of them, or mixtures Of
either Of them, to the members of said Club
or to invited guests, then the Court in
structs the Jury that they must fud the.
defendant guilty. TO this instruction the
defendant, by counsel, objected.
AS there is no dispute about the fact that
this club is not licensed, and. the further
fact proved by its secretary that
DRINKS WERE DISPENSED
at its Clubhouse through its agent under a
contract with the Club to its members and
invited guests, the propriety of giving this
instruction brings up the whole question OF
the liability OF this corporation to this in
dictment. This question has been ably and
ingeniously argued on both sides, and with:
In the very brief space Of time that I have had
since day before yesterday have given it
the best consideration that was able under
the circumstances surrounding me. The
first section of the act imposing tax on the
privilege of selling wine, ardent spirits,
&C., approved March 80, 1877, provides
that "no person shall within the limits Of
this Commonwealth sell wine, ardent spi1-
| its, malt liquors, or any mixture thereof,
either by wholesale, retail, or to be drank
at the place where sold, or in any other,
way, without having first obtained license
therefor; and after defining the several
kinds of business to be licensed, it further
provides that "any person violating the
provisions OF this section shall be deemed
| ~ ya1h n,Ic cI,Il hn rt,of
not less than twenty dollars nor more than
five hundred dollars, and be imprisoned not
less than one month nor more than twelve
months.' 8t-.l a9 t...-.sa.
'. THE SECOND SECTION PROVIDES
that "any person who desires a license to
sell by retail, or to keep a bar.room, shall
first apply therefor to the court Of the coun-
Uy or corporation in which he resides; and
if the court be fully satisfied, upon hearing
the testimony for and against the applica-
ton, should any be offered, that the appli-
can't is fit person, and that the place OF
business is suitable and convenient, it shall,
upon the execution by the applicant OF a
bond, with good security, payable to the
Commonwealth Of Virginia, in q penalty OF
not less than 800 nor more than $1,000,
conditioned for the faithful performance OF
all the requirements OF this act. grant such
license" '..as
It will be observed that in both sections
OF the act above quoted the word "per-
SON" only is used, and the attorney for the
Commonwealth has argued to show that
under that provision OF the Code Chapter
| 1539) relative to the construction of sta
tutes which says that the "word 'person'
may extend and be applied to bodies polite
and corporate as well as individuals" the
| in h,no
corporations as we'll as natural persons.
THE INQUIRY WHICH MEETS Us
at the threshold, then, is {: Does the word
"person," as used in the act, embrace cor
p0rdtionS?
In order to solve this question we will in
quire-
First. Can corporation, as such, obtain
the license prescribed by the statute to sell,
&C.? And ..
Secondly. Can it incur the penalty pre-
scribed for a violation OF the law by selling
without license? ...., ..i .....-i
For il it can do neither of these things it
must be clear that the word "person," as
used in the statute, will not embrace cOrpo-
rattons.
Gan q corporation, then, as such, obtain q
license TO sell by retail, or to Eeep q bar
room, under this statute?
AS early as 1889 the Legislature provided
that, in order to obtain such license, the
applicant should obtain from the court q
certificate that the "store is a place fit and
convenient to the neighborhood for the re-
tail of such liquors. and that he or she is of
GOOD character" (Acts 1SS9-40, ch. 235.)
This continued to be the wording OF the
law until 1859, when the words used were
that the certificate should be that he or she
was a person CT sobriety and good charac-
ter" tActs 1s59-60, 81, p. 49, And the
words used in the Code OF 1860 were, I" q
person of good character" (Code Of 1860,
ch. 38, 32.) In 1870 the words I" "Sobriety
ond good character" were restored. (Acts
1S70-71, p. 81. 99.) These words were in
serted in the Code Of 1873 (ch. 81, s 24), and
were only changed to aft person" for
the first time by the act of March 30, 1877,
now under consideration; and Judge
Burks, speaking for the whole Court Of
Appeals Of Virginia, in Hogan Us. Guigon,
Judge, goth Grattan, 712, says, in speaking
Of this act, that substantially the same
certificate as 10
CHARACTER AND CONVENIENCE
of place is required by the first the meant
second) section Of the act'as under former
acts"
i 1t is unnecessary to argue, then, that if
the applicant FOR such license must prove
to the Court that he is person of !" "sobri-
not be embraced within the meaning OF the
word "person," as used in this act.
But again: Can q corporation incur the
penalty prescribed for selling lcithout O. IL
cense? AS before stated, the act provides
|. that any ferS0r violatinor its nroyisinns Q