The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1881-09-30
The LIQUOR CASES DECISION
Editors Herald:

, Et|CLOGo hCI CCNs
In your issue of September II,
1881, appears Judge Hunters deci-
sion on the recent liquor case in
Salt Lake City. In that decision
these sentences occur: "By a sec
tion in the Compiled Laws OF the
territory, the County Court has the
right to grant license to persons,
or to refuse them, and in case Of
selling liquor without license the
County Court must prosecute as the
people, and upon conviction the de-
PENDANT can he fined under the
statutes in Il sum hot exceeding
500"
Having much to do in hearing
violations Of law in this direction, |
have carefully examined the law on
page 172 Compiled Laws of Utah,
and | fail to see where the fine of
$50 is prescribed for doing the liquor
business without license. Section
3 of said law says: Said County
Court shall fix the price of any and
every such license by them granted"
Section says: eff any person shall
violate the provisions Of any of the
preceding sections of this act, the
offender may be fined in any sum
not exceeding one hundred dollars
for each and every such violation, to
be recovered as an action of debt"
These sections are in reference to
license, yet silent on fine, not soil
tary word of mot exceeding $50"
for doing a liquor business un-
| licensed from the County Court;
even the price Of the license is not
prescribed in the law, and even if it
were would it not be very circuit
Gus and expensive work to recover
the same "as an action of debt
Section 7. IF any person shall
barter, sell or dispose of any intoXi-
eating liquors on the day Of the
week commonly called Sunday, he
shall forfeit and pay, for the use of
the county wherein such Offense
shall have been committed, any SUM
not exceeding $40 for each offense,
etc." to be recovered as provided for
in the 9Th section of this act. In
this section occurs the $50, but this
is for the violation Of section Z in
regard to Sunday selling.
| The Judge says the county must
prosecute in the name of the peo-
pie" This law under consideration
says the sum recovered shall be "for
the use of the county wherein such
offenSe,' etc. An action for debt
being a civil action, must not "the
real party in interest" sue in their
proper name, and seeing the coun-
ties are now incorporated QS7S),
would it not be proper to sue in it's
corporate. name and not in the name
Of the people? The people Of the
territory, l presume, is meant.
Section S.-"No provision Of this
act shall be so construed as to inter
fere in any way with the rights of
the municipal authorities of incor-
pOrated towns or Cities approved
January I'd, 1860. In February,
1876, the Legislature passed the
penal code. In section 246 Of said
code page SIS Of Compiled Laws, it
reads: Every person who COM
mences, or carries on any business,
trade, profession or calling, for the
transaction or carrying on of which
a license is required by any law of
this territory or by any county reg
ulation, without taking out the
license required by law or by the
county regulation, is guilty Of mis-
demeanor." Section ? of the law of
January 20, 1860, page 1T2, prescribes
limits to the county regulations.
Section 400 of the penal code says:
"All acts and parts of acts hereto
fore passed x = Inconsistent
with the provisions Of this act, be
and the same are hereby re-
pealed." Does the later law prevail ?
A miSdeneanOr, section II of the
penal code says, is punishable by a
fine not exceeding 5000. Section $50
Of the same code pTeScribeS fine Of
not less than S. nor more than 300
for keeping open "a saloon on Sun
day for the purpose of transacting
business therein" Not word of
not to exceed $50. Section 1874 also
says Every person who performs
any unnecessary business on Sunday
is guilty Of 4 NisdemeanOr and shall
be fined in any sum not exceeding
$25. This section is s. in excess of
section 7 Of the laws of 1860 for a
violation of the Sunday law. Which
prevails, the law of 1850, 1876 or the
judges decision?
In your next issue you again refer
to the decision, and say HE held
that the territorial law authorizing
county courts to grant liquor licenses
was applicable to Cities" How does
that jIbe with section of the law
of 1860 which positively says No
provision Of this act shall be so con-
strued as to interfere with the rights
of cities" If the Judge holds to any
part of the law OF 1860 why rot to
section s? Section 305 Compiled
Laws with regard to "Butchering,"
ETC., has similar words as to non-ln-
reference with cities in this regard.
And the county court alone is au-
thOriZed to issue butcher licenses if
the judge is right under these i'm
preSsiOnS that cities were exempted
from prosecutions for violations of
the liquor or butcher acts proSecu-
tons by the people" have not been
had in this county.