The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1883-02-09
neer BottIiug.
In THE QUARTER SESSIONS.

oommonwealtm Indictment for selling
| vs. lager beer without IL
John +. Keller. censc.
SPECIAL VERDICT.
Opinion by Elwcll, p. j., Filed Feb. 8, 's3.
| Inc verdict finds that the defendant Is
engaged in the business of bottling lager
beer, ale and porter at Berwick, in this
county, and that within the last year he
has, at his place of business and at other
places in the county, sold lager beer in bot
Ties and in larger quantities by the keg,
none of which was drank on his premises
with his knowledge, and that he had no
license as bother and had not paid the
sum of fifty dollars as a license fec
The question submitted for the decision
of the Court is, whether under these facts
the defendant has incurred the penalty
prescribed by law for selling malt liquors
without license.
1t is contendcd by the Counsel for the
| defendant that the business Of bottling and
selling lager beer by the bottle, is excepted
out of the general provisions of the law by
Act of 2Sth of April, 1868, Purd Dig. 045,
which provides among other things by
Section 8, that bottlers of ale, porter or
beer, not otherwise engaged in the sale of
intoxicating liquors, nor in keeping any
tavern oyster house or cellar, restaurant
| or place of amusement or refreshmcnt
shall he allowed to sell the same by the
bottle, without taking out license.
Prorided that such liquor is not drank upon
the premises where solG, nor at any place
provided by such seller for that purpose.
Thus the law stood until the 22d day of
March, 1867, when it was enacted, Pamph-
let Laws, page Al, that, If any person after
the passage of this act, shall sell spirituous
and vinous liquors, domestic wines, malt
or brewed liquors without having obtained
license authorizing him so to do, such
person shall, on conviction in the Court of
Quarter Sessions, be fined, &c.
That this Act was not intended to be
| limited to a prohibition of unlicensed sales
| by hotel or restaurant keepers, is manifest
| from the comprehensive terms employed.
| Also from the fact that the prouiso exempts
from its operations, druggists and apoth.
ecarics who sell unmixed alcohol or brewed
liquor in the preparation of medicine. In
the construction of statutes it is rule that
"an exception strengthens the force of law
in cases not excepted"
| This act operated as a repeal of the Stl
section of the act of 1868, not by express
words, but by clear implication. A subse
quent affirmative statute is repeal by i'm.
| plication of a former one concerning the
same matter, if it introduce new rule upon
the subject ard be evidently intended as d
substitute for the former law, although il
contains no express words repeating it.
Bishop on statutory crimes sec. 153 John
ston' Estate 33 st. Rep. 511. The last ex
preston of the legislative will must pre-
vail
In n well considered opinion of Judge
| Williams of the 4th District he says "Af
ter this act, 0S67O bottlers stood where
they should stand on the same ground as
other venders. They could obtain license
to sell, by the quart or in larger quantities
in the same manner that any other dealer
could bnt they could not sell without 6
license"
No further legislation was had upon thC
subject of license, until the passage of the 10
cal option law in 1872 which prohibited, il
counties adopting it, all licenses tor sales o.
liquor In 1875 that act was repealed. Bu
this legislation did not affect the act of 1867
which was all the while in force and re
mains the law to this day so far as relate,
to sale without license. Imean to say tina
the pro hibitory portion of the act remains
in force. The Act of 1875 provides Di
gest 2029 } that license for the sale ot
liquor when not otherwise provided for by
special law, may be granted by the Court o.
| Quarter Sessions. 1t also provides for tht
classification of hotels, and fixes tn,
amount to be paid for their license, and il
an unmistakeable manner expresses tn,
intent of the law makers in a prOriso whicl
declares that no license for bottlers shal
be less than fifty dollars.
The argument on behalf of the defen
dant wholly ignores the Act of 1867, anC
renders meaningless the Act of 1875. B,
the former the selling without license wa
in broad terms forbidden to all persons, anC
by the latter the business of bottling il
specially mentioned IN connection will
other business in respect to which license
is required.
All persons engaged in the sale of intox
icating drinks are thereby placed upon tn,
same footing that is they must have
license so to do. A sale by the bottle con
tanning pint or quart is equally viola
ton of the law as a sale by the drink. A
no time except during the nine years be
tween 1868 aud 1867 have bottlers been ex
ceptcd from the general provision of tn,
law, There appears to be no good reasol
why they should have special privilege
above others who make sales of liquors
if there is it has not been discovered b,
the Legislature.
Judgment on the special verdict in favo
Of the Commonwealth.