The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-11-19
The Davis License Cnss-Suudny
LiQu0r Law.

Mark Davis was fined In the Police Court
on August l6, 1881, for violating the city
ordinance In keeping open his bar-room on
Sunday, July "a, 1881.
A rule was issued from the Hastings
Court and served on him In October TO
show cause at the November term, III he
could, why his license should not be re-
yoked on account OF SAID offence. This
rule wasissued under the 10Cth section, page
81, OF Revenue Laws for 1S80-'Sl, which
reads as follows:
"Upon the motion OF the attorney for
the Commonwealth for the county, city, or
town, or ofany other person, after ten days
notice to any person or firm licensed to sell
liquors. or any other thing the granting OF
whose license was based upon the certifi-
cate OF n court, the court which granted
the certificate may revoke the said license"
Mr.. Dayis's answer to the rule was that
the IIustings Court had not jurisdiction to
take away his license for that offence; and,
secondly, that as he had been already pun
ished for the offence, the Court had no
right to further punish him for the same
offence. His counsel contended that the
Court would have to grant license to any
applicant, provided he was "fit per-
SON wiz, ga person OF s0briety and
good character, and the place suitable and
convenient; that by the words "good
character" was meant person who was
honcst-who would not rob-wbo would
not perjure himself, and OF the like charac-
teristics; that IL was never intended that
person who had broken a city ordinance
was not "person OF good character y;
that as he would have to grant license to
such person, he could not revoke it un-
less for another cause.
Further, chat II the said section had
ever allowed him the discretion TO revoke
for such cause, then the grant had been
repealed: that by the 10th section OF
chapter 7 OF the Criminal Code OF Vir-
ginia il had been declared that person
who should be convicted OF keeping his
bar-room OPEN and selling liquor on Sun
day should be fined or imprisoned, and
that the Judge in his discretion might re-
woke the palty's license. Ii was argued
that in every case tried under that statute
the Judge was obliged to exercise his dis
cretion-was forced to decide whether he
would revoke or not; that as he would
have 10 exercise his discretion under the
latter section he could not exercise it again
under the said 106th section, for the reason
that the said 10Th section had as to this
offence superseded the said 106th section;
that. the 1OGth section had been as to this
offence done away with, according 10 the
doctrine OF repeal by implication.
Further, that the Legislature had shown
by the act passed at the last session that
they intended that q license should not be
revoked for such an offence; for IN amend
ing and reenacting said 19th section it had
seen fit TO leave ont this power OF judge
to revoke license for such a cause: hence
they must have meant by such action to
take away from the judges such power.
The counsel then argued that it was a
rule OF the common law recognized at
this day that no man should be punished
twice for the same offence; that Davis had
been punished, and that the Hastings
Court had 40 right to inflict a second pun
ishment for the said offence. They cite
several authorities to sustain this position.
Judge Christian yesterday held that he
had the power still under the said f0Gth
section, and entered judgment against Da-
Wis. lie was allowed sixty days in which
to obtain a writ Of error. The case will be
taken to the Court Of Appeals.
The Court suspended further action III
similar cases until the Court Of Appeals
should decide this case.
Hon. George ID. Wise and Colonel c. v.
Meredith appeared for Davis.