Herald and tribune. [volume] (Jonesborough, Tenn.) 1869-current, 1883-11-22
THE RECENT LIQUOR DECISIONS,
Important to all who make or
sell Liquor.


Of the two recent decisions of the
supreme court, at Knoxville, rela-
tive to the duties of liquoremakers
and liquor>sellers under the license
laws.
In the case Of the State VS.. S. ].
Tarver, the indictment charged that
S. J.. Tarver, on the 9th day of
June, 1888, in Knox County, un-
lawfully did sell an Intoxicating
beverage known as whisky, and an
Intoxicating beverage known as
brandy within four miles of al in
corporated institution Of learning,
he, the said S. j. Tarver, being the
manufacturer of the said whisky
and brandy, and selling the same in
quantities not less nor under a
quart, and not to be drank upon the
the premises of the place at the time
of sale.
The court below, on motion of
the defendant, quashed the indict-
ment and the state appealed.
The supreme court in their opin-
ion, say: "By the act OF 1877
(Chap. %, Sec. ~ known as the four
mile law it was enacted that it
shall not hereafter be lawful for
any person to sell or tipple any
Intoxicating bey erage within four
miles of an incorporated institution
of learning, in this state, and that
any one violating the provisions OF
this act shall be guilty of misde-
meanor, &c. By the End section
| of said act it was provided, THAT
this act shall not apply to the sale
Of such liquors within the limits OF
any incorporated town. Nor to sales
made by persons having licenses to
make the same, at the date Of the
passage of this act during the time
for which such licenses were gran
ted. Nor to sales by manufacturers.
manufacturers of such liquors in
Wholesale package or quantities.
1t is insisted for the defendant thai
the sale of spirituous liquors in
| quantities not less than a quart not
to be drunk upon the premises
when sold, is a sale in wholesale
quantities within the saying OF the
statute. 1t was determined by this
| court in a case decided. at Jackson
during the last term, but not yet re-
ported that the distinction between
a wholesale. and retail dealer did
not depend upon the quantity sold
by either, but that sales to pur'
chasers of packages or quantities
for the purposes of trade Dr. being
resold constituted a wholesale deal
or; and sales to persons or custo-
mers for purposes of consumption
constituted a retail dealer. Lanam>
haughts VS. the State, MSS. We
adhere to that distinction as there
taken, and furthermore are satisfied
that where it was the intention OF
the legislature to permit the manu-.
f~acturers whose establishments were
situate within four miles of an in
corporate institution of learning to
| dispose of their products at the
places of manufacture, by wholesale,
it was not the legislatures intention
to grant to them a privilege of sci
ling to customers for consumption,
which was denied to other persons.
We hold that manufacturers OF
spirituous liquors are not permit
ted to sell the same for purposes OF
| consumption within four miles OF
an incorporated institution of learn
ing and are liable to the same
penalties as other persons for SO
doing"
The other case was that of John
Webb VS.. the State. Webb was
presented for selling liquor unlaNS
fully and without LICENSE.
. The probf was that Webb was a
! manufacturer of whisky from the
of.the. farms, SC, OF tbs
Estate, and sold a quart.
| In their opinion of the law the
! court says: 1T is earnestly insisted
that the manufacturer of spirits.
wines, &C., from the products of any
Tfa-m, garden, &C., in this state, is
exempt from the privilege tax i'm
posed on other dealers by virtue OF
Of the act of 1870, Code section 691t
notwithstanding the subsequent
acts of 1881, and that 10th acts
may stand tog 5ther, the later acts
only applying to dealers other than
manufacturers from the products
| of the farms, &c., Of the state.
Int he 46 section of the act OF
1881, entitled AN act to provide
more just and equitable laws for the
assessment and collection of reye-
nue. for state and county purposes
&C., it is provided the occupations
and business transactions enumera-
ated therein, shall be deemed privi-
leges, and to be taxed, and not pur-
sued or done without LICENSE,
Among these occupations and
business transactions are mentioned
sIiouor dealers, whether liquor be
spirituous, yipous or malt. whole.
sale or retail" Acts Of 1881, 256
By another act passed at the same
session entitled IAN act to provide
revenue fer the State OF Tennessee
and the counties Gnc "e"f a tax Is
imposed GH wholesale liquor dealer:
| Of one bundled and fifty dollars,a
taxed also as other merchants.
''Retail liquor dealers are also
taxed as other merchants and In adj
dition are required to pay a tax
of $3.50 to 5000. Acts of 1881, p
POI.
We think it manifest from these
acts that all wholesale dealers, as
we'll as all retail dealers, are re-
ouired to pay the taxes imposed by
them. No exception is made III
favor cf ally class of dealers by the
acts. and all who dsal in liquor,
whether they sell by wholesale or
retail, are required to obtain Ii
cense and pay the tax imposed.
SIN the recent case Of the State
VS.. Sowenhaught, decided at the last
term of this court at Jackson, } Judge
Freeman, in delivering the oplnon
of the Court, said: "What is meant
by retailing is selling by small
quantities, to suit customers, ar-
ticles which are bought in larger
amounts, generality NRe who
sells in this way is a retail dealer
any one who sells in gross and not
by the small quantities or parcel to
consumers is a wholesale dealer"
hittis IHIeroine's MisIap.
Council BLUFFS, &os. H.
Yesterday, Julia Robinson, aged
o;oht wears. attemDted to cross q