Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1885-08-22

ia one Shaffer. who was Ia the haolt
of becoming intoxicated. The court
instructed the jury as follows: III
therefore you shOald be sa'lsned from
the evidence that the defendent IN fact
sold Intoxicating liquors ID ShaHers at
or ab,ut the time charged, ana IN this
county, and that shaffer was IN the
habit of becoming intoxicated, then
the defendants would be guilty 16
would make no difference whether the
defendent knew Shaffer had such
a haoit or not, a druggist sells
10 such a person at his peril. Neither
the druggists permit, nor the apph-
J cants statement will protect the drug
oist from the penalty of the law for
such sale" From this construction OF
the law 1t will be seen, that the drug
gist must know as a matter Of facts that
! the person applying for intoxicating
/ liquors is not in the habit OF becoming
intoxicated If he sells to such a per
son he therefore violates the laws and
must suffer the consequence.
We will now call your attention to
the law governing the statute Of Sherihs
and other peace officers, Section Z
Chap 149 Laws of 1885.
It shall be the duty Of all sheris, deputy sherifs,
cOnstaOles, marshuls, police judges, and police
officers OF any city or town, having notice or
knowledge OF any violations Of the provisions Of
this act 10 mott the county attorney of the fact
of such giOlat on, and 70 furnish him the names
of any witnesses within his knowledge. by whom
! such violation can be proven. If any such officer
shall fail to comply with the provisions of this
section, he shall upon conviction be fined in any
sum not less than one hundred nor more than five
hundred dollars, and such Coz victiOn shall be Tor
,eiture the Office held by such person; and the
court before whom such conviction is had SHALL in
addition to the imposition Of the aforesaid order
and adjudge the forfeiture o. his said Office.
The legislature evidently intended
that officers should DO their duty and
zee that violations of the law are inves-
tigated and the viOlatOrs punished.
Not alone over such neglect of duty a
crime followed by heavy fine, but the
conviction shall be deemed q forfeiture
OF the office, and it is made the imper-
itiye duty of the court before whom the
case is tried, to declare just forfeiture
of Office. l he legislature also cOnsid-
cred and determined that the County
Attorney should do his duty, and have
by law required a strict and faithful
performance Of his duties in uphOlding
and maintaining the dignity of the law.
In Section II of the same Chapter.
it provides as follows.
Ifany county attorney shall fail, neglect or re-
fuse TO faithfully perform any duty imposed upon
% q
IL sdemeauor, and upon conviction thereof shall
be flied Ia any sum not less thar one hundred
dollars nor more than i've hun dFed dollars, and be
imprisoned in the county jail not less than ten
days nor more than NIFTY days; and such con-
VlctlOn shall operate as forfeiture OF his Office
and the court before whom such conviction ma,
be had shall order and adiudge such forfeiture OF
office in addition TO the fine imposed as herein pro
vided
The county attOrnsy is the man who
stands at the 'helm" of all prosecu-
tiOns. He is the man who starts the
''mills of JUSTICE to grinding, and if
faithful and energetic, is a terror to
YiOlatOrs of law aud wrong doors. He
is the guardian OF the property and the
lives of the public, and the protectors
of society. Whenever law is violated
he can call into operation all the ma
chineTy of the government and follow
the wrong doer until he is placed in
confinement and brought to suffer the
pe1altp OF his disregard of the rights of
society On the other hand, if the
county attorney is q man who winks
at violations of the law. or who, having
knowledge of such violations, searches
for bubbles and technicaliGies to base
an excuse upon for a refusal to prose-
cute, of course the viOIatOrs of this law
will be encouraged to 90 on. Under
such circumstances there is no danger
OF the flood gates of justice being raised
and the stream therefrOm engulfing
them.
In conclusion of this article, we must
not lose sight of the great power of the
probate judge regulating the sales of
intoxicating liquors, and as bearing
upon and showing this power, we cops
the law thereon. Section l, same chap
ter reads as follows:
In order to obtain druggists permit pnder
this act the applicant therefor shall present to the
probate Judge OF the county wherein such appli-
cant Is engaged IN business, petition signed by
al least twelve freehOlders, having the Gualifca-
tlons of electors OF the township or city where n
such business is located, certifying that the aD-
plcant Is person of 60 moral Character and
lawfully engaged in the business of a druggist
L satisfied that the petition isr true the Dr6bate
Judge may, IN MS discreet on, grant permit 10 the
applicant 70 sell Intoxicating iquors or medical
mechanical and scientific purposes only.
In granting or refusing permits the
probate Judge is the sole and exclusive
judge of his actions in such matters.
He may grant or he may refuse the is.
suauce OF such permit and no court has
the power to say whether his actions in
such matters are erroneous or not. In
the case of Martin & MilLken against
the probate judge, o. hooks county, the
probate judge refused to issue these
parties a permit because he believed
that Martin, while a member of the
firm of Barrus & Martin, violated a per-
nit granted to Barrus & Martin, and
that he believed that if a permit was
granted Martin & Milliken it would be
used Tor other purposes than specified
IN the permit. This case was taken 10
the Supreme Court by Martin & Milli-
ken and that court refused them any re-
lief and affirmed the action Of the pro
bate judge in refusing the permit and
held as follows:
''rhat the refusal of a probate Judge
to grant to an applicant a druggists
permit under the provisions Of the act
to prohibits the manufacture and sale of