Mexico weekly ledger., 1879-07-03
L II VS.. ~SCHARLACH.
Charge: Selling E.iquOr with
out n License.


from the State to sell whisky in any
quantity in that way.
This prosecution had grown out of
a suddeR spasm of morality which if
not checked would bankrupt the city.
There wa no city ordinance regu-
lating either.merchants or druggists,
until one was passed both could sell
whisky as they CHOSE, so far as the
city was CONCERNED. "
The state divides business into two
classes, merchants and druggists,
and imparts to them certain rights to
sell whisky, and these rights cannot
be interf4rsd With by the city with
out special authority from the state.
The state defined and licensed dram
shop keepers, aga the city charter
granted to the city power to license
and OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES and the city
had made 1t an ?l1ense. on the part OF
those that kent.sleE to sell liquor in
quantities less. that 6ise gallon With
out a city lieease, bat in that ordi-
nance there is mo alluslon to mer-
chants or Druggists. Tie dramshop
keeper must have his petition, must
apply to the council and must pro-
duce Il receipt from the treasurer be-
fore the clerk a grant. him a Ii
cense. In qdditiorto the dramshop
license there is also tile beer and
Wine license but the city ordinances
do not include the druggist and in
reference TO him their action would
have been null and void if they had
done so. The state gives him a right
to sell for medical purposes and that
right could not DC abrogatcd by the
city. The charter does not say that
tue council may suspend the sale of
liquor by Il drug store. 1t may be
regulated and even taxed bat there is
power to annul. Under the law that
has been read to the jury the city
has undertaken to say that liquor
shall not he sold even for medicinal
purposes by any one except the Ii
ccnscd dramsKop keeper. This is
going beyond. its power. The city
might tax u drug store $50 if it
chose. 1t might require it to shut
up at 10 O'Clock except for prescrip-
tions. but when the druggist sells
liquor lie violates no city dramshop
license law. No ordinance rcgUla-
ting druggists has been passed by the
city. 1t is Impossible therefore to
commit an olIense under it. | don't
say that if this were a state court the
prosecuting attorney might not insist
upon a verdict. but an action fOI
violating state law cannot be main
tanned here. The Recorder has no
power to !ry ANYTHING but violations
Of city ordinances. As there is nc
iHredicliQn there can be pelther con
viction gor penalty. -.
: Mr.. Buckner, city prosecutor, SAID
+, in reply, Why is it that in every
: contest he ever had with the oITos.
ing counsel there is allusion to yea
witIoutknowledgc, and yet i'll mons
of his encounters with him had h(
5 ever been defeated. Judge FORTS
: iutcricctcd that he had made no ref
e crencc to the City Attorney and in
: stanccd a case IN which hat gentle
@ man had been beaten
The city prosecuting attorney &c
knowledged that he had zeal and tina
when he ceased to possess it h
would give pace TO some II tina
had it. The defence commenced b.
ohiccting to jurors because they wcr
citizens of Mexico. In Il state tria
Jurors might as well be objected t
II because they were citizens Of til
If state. 1t has been alleged that tn
It defendant cannot violate the city OF
o dinancc.
III Can't a druggist be a dram-sho
d keeper? The defendant is not char2
ed as being without license bccaus
- he is n druggist, but because he is
is dram-shop keeper. The law declare
that no one shall sell liquor in quar-
or titles less than one gallon without
city license. The question for d
cisiOn is not whether under the ord
=, nance n merchant or a druggist,
a driver, or Il drayman can sell
- puor without license, but can an
body do it and he protected fro
penalty. The question submitted
or the jury also embraces the inquir
,. whether the defendant has sold liqu
as and kept a dram-shop without
j" ceHs0. TiIerc IL :, sGsAsbC AhOs-o
empts liquor sold for medicinal PIT
poses and if the jury believe that t
% liquor sold by defendant was want
for that use 1t is their duty to acq'
HIM.
.oo The defendant is liable for (
ho acts of his clerk. At the same I'll
both are responsible to the law tn
have violated. The jury can Diet
Or mine the amount of the penalty.
must be not less than $40 nor mC
than 500.
er.
18th Verdict. Guilty and fine assess
at $40.
Masonic Celebration.
=, The Columbia Statesman. spc,