The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-02-01
THE noFrErr LIQUOR Law.
THE N1oLL AND HOGAN CASES DECIDED
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALs
YEsTERDAY-JuDGE. GUlGoN sUsTAiNED
AND THE COURT THINK HE HAS NOT
EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION. 5.

EXCEEDED HIS JURIsDICT1oN. sS
In the Supreme Court Of Appeals yester
day, the very important cases OF Hogan Us
tGuigon and Mol Us. the same were de
Ecided. e So
These were applications to the Court el
Appeals by the petitioners Hogan and Mol
for Writs OF prohibition against the Hon.
A. B. Guigop, Judge Of the Hastings Couri
of the city Of Richmond.
The petitioners were bar-room liquor
dealers in the city OF Richmond, licenses
as such by the Hustings Court OF the city,
under what is known as the Mofett-register
law. Upon reports made to- the Hastings
Court by the commissioner of the revenue,
according to the provisions OF the act, Tao
Judge was OF opinion, from inspection OF
the reports. that the petitioners had not
kept by the register true account OF the
sales made by them, and he made rules
against them to show cause why their
licenses should not be revoked. He yras
proceeding TO iudgnfont when hissaetfsn
was suspended by rules awarded against
him by the Court Of Appeals, on the petit
tions OF Hogan and Moll for writs OF prohi-
bition. @
The cases were ably argued before the
Court of Appeals last week by John B..
Young, Esq, for the petitioners, and Attor-
ney-General Field for the respondent. The
opinion of the Court was delivered yester-
day by Judge Burks. The following is the
substance: The question is whether the
proceeding of Judge Guigon is in excess OF
jurisdiction. This is the extent OF our in
quiry. We dismiss at the threshold all con-
sideration OF the sufficiency Oh insufliciency
OF the alleged cause Of revocation. Ii he
has Jurisdiction Of the proceeding, how
ever erroneous or mistaken his Judgment,
the remedy by prohibition does not lie.
The writ of prohibition can never be made
to do the Office of writ OF error. ills
preventive, not corrective, remedy. It is in
tended to confine inferior courts within the
Just limits of their Jurisdiction, not to cor
rect errors in proceedings OF which they
have cognizance. Eilyson er parte 20 Graft.
IN X \
In the cases before US we are not called
upon to decide whether the proceeding OF
the respondent on the evidence before hlm
would be proper exercise OF the power
with which he is invested, but whether he
has any such power at ALL If has the power,
we might be OF opinion that the proposed
exercise OF it by him would be error; but
prohibition.
II he has the power, it is not conferred by
the act under which the licenses were
granted. It must be looked for in some
other act.
The 1OGth section OF chapter 206 OF the
A cts Of 1S74-'75 reads thus: "Upon the
motion of the attorney for the Common
wealth for the county, city, or town, or OF
any other person, after ten days notice 10
any person or firm licensed to sell liquors or
any other thing, the granting OF whose IL
censes was based upon the certificate OF q
court, the court which granted the cerslh-
cate may revoke the license"
II this section is still in force it cannot be
doubted that the Hastings Court OF the
CITY OF Richmond has the jurisdiction
claimed for it. The terms OF the section are
for this purpose. :.
IT has been the settled policy OF the State
from the year 1881 to this day to require ab
nersons licensed to retail liquors to get q
certificate from the court granting the y
cense as to character, and also as to conve
nience of place OF sale, and to invest the
courts with the power OF revoking the IL
cense. Statutes Of this description are nu-
| merous, and it is believed that there has
been no time since 1881 that the county or
corporation courts, OF both, nave no. nao
this Dower. In some Of the earlier statutes
the bower to revoke was limited by the
terms "upon good cause shown" In other
acts the power was to be exercised off the
court saw fit" Finally, all words Of limita-
ton were dropped, and the power was
committed to the discretion OF the court IN
the terms of the section before set out
rThe opinion cites most of the statutes.]
These courts still have this power under
the section referred to, unless it has been
repealed. It certainly has not been eX'
presslv repealed. II repealed at all, 1t has
been by implication. Has it been so re-
pealed?
It is difficult to conceive OF any good rea
son why the settled policy OF the State OF
this subject should have been changed a
all: and it is most remarkable, il such {
radical change has been made, that the EVIL
dence OF it rests on no Surer foundatlOI
than that OF presumption.
Repeal by implication is not favored by
the courts, for ordinarily where repeal j:
intended by the Legislature it is declared II
express words. Hence the rule laid doW1
by Chief-J Justice Marshall, and q like rule b.
Judge Story, that a repeal OF a statute b.
implication ought not to be presumed un
less from the repugnance OF the provision
the inference be necessary and unavoidable
To Justify the presumption OF intention t.
: repeal one statute by another the tW'
statutes must be irreconcilable. [Numerou
authorities are cited in support OF thes
propositions.]
There is no patibility between th,
section referred to and the act OF March 30
1877, establishing the Motfctt register as al
agency in the collection OF revenue. Ful
effect may be given to each without dlmln
ishing the force of either. They may wei
stand together, and il they can they must 81
stand. 1t is not to be supposed that so I'm
portant Il provision OF the law as tue sec
ton mentioned, in force in some form o.
other for more than forty years, would b'
repealed in any other way than by term
the most direct.
The opinion then proceeds to consider th
several provisions OF the new act with tn
view OF showing that they are pcrfectl.
consistent with the power conferred upol
the county and corporation courts unde
the former act to revoke liquor-license
granted by them.
The opinion concludes that the Judge Q
the Hastings Court OF the city OF Richmon'
is invested by law with the jurisdiction
claimed by him in his answers to the rule
made against him; that he has not exceeded
his jurisdiction in the proceedings com
plained Of in the petitions; and that the rule
awarded the petitioners be discharged q
their costs.
The authorities cited in the opinion ar
omitted in this summary.
SOCRATES BROOKS TRIED AND ACQUITTED
In the Hastings Court Of Manchester ye
terday the case against Socrates Brooks wa
called. The Court quashed two counts