Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1885-04-23

n
no one shall give them away at his
place of business, or have them in his
possession for the purpose of giving
them away. But without any viola
ton of the statute, number of per-
sons may buy liquors outside of the
county for their joint use, and bring
them within the county and drink
them. 1t was not the object of the
statute to apply to a case ofthis kind.
"The State offered to prove by Jas.
b. Taylor (since deceased) that he
had seen liquor at the club rooms Of
the appellant The witness alleged
that he was member of the club,
although not named. In the articles Of
incorporation and he claimed a right
to be excused from testifying on the
ground that be might thereby crimi-
nate himself. He ought, therefore.
says the Court of Appeals, to have
been excused from testifying, and on
this question they all agree In disap-
proving the ruling of the Court which
required him to give evidence.
"As to the power of increasing mem-
bership, the opinion says, it would be
practically impossible for the FIVE per.
sons named in the certificate without
the aid of others, to do what they
profess in the fourth article to be their
purpose, and it can hardly be sup
posed that they had any intention of
attempting it without such aid. 1t is
difficult to see how any mode Of at.
tanning these objects could be devised
which would be more convenient and
expedient than an increase of the
membership. Corporations are not
restricted by the statute to the use Of
means which are indispensable neces.
sary to promote the objects for which
they were formed; If there should be
many different modes of attaining the
same object neither one could be said
to be eindispensably necessary, because
the object might be accomplished by
some of the others.
With respect to all the exceptions
except the FIRST and second il is sufi.
cient to say in general terms that che
appellant had q right to prove IL
could; that the club rooms were kept
exclusively for the club, including
those who were admitted after the in
corporation, as well as those named
in the certificate, and that no one but
such members were allowed 70 obtain
liquor, refreshments, and other mater
ials from the club; that the materials
used by the club were purchased in
the name Of the club, and paid for
with its own money, and we're held
in common BY the members; that no
profit was made BY the club, or any
Of its members, or was intended to be
made, and thar the whole income de.
rived from the different sources Of
revenue was used solely 10 replace the
materials consumed, and TO defray the
expenses Of the club, and that the
prices paid for the refreshments BY
the members were fixed without an
intent to make q profit directly Or in.
directly, but merely for the purpose
Of covering the outlay in the purchase
Of them by tho club, and the expense
of keeping and serving them at the
club rooms. We understand this IL
the substance oE the various oilers
Of proof made at the trial and over
ruled nv the lower court, on the
ground that persons not named il the
certificate Of incorporation could not
lawfully be admitted into the member
ship of the club. IL this ruling we
think the learned court erred
"A demurrer was fled to the IN
dictment. Although the question il
not properly before us, II vas argued
By the LEANED counsel and We were re-
quested to give our opinion upon Il.
The fourth and 9Th sections oE the
statute ID perfectly distinct terms 10
clude corporation among the delin.
Quents % be punished for 3 violation
81 their provisions. The demurrer
was properly overruled =