Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-10-22

A case of great interest to liquor dealers
and the public was argued in the Supreme
Court Yesterday, that of James Sellers, of
Butler, error to the Quarter Sessions of that
county. Sellers was fined $500 and sem
tenced to 20 days Imprisonment for selling
liquor to minors and to persons of known
intemperate habits.
Sellers kept the Diamond Hotel in But
Ter. He was represented by Mcbride and
Goucher, and the Commonwealth by Scott
and NcPherrin. For the plaintiff in error
it is held that the Court erred in not quash-
ing the Indictment, because it does not
allege that Sellers sold liquor as beverage
knowingly and willlully to people who
were not properly receptive subjects, and
that the Court should have held the
Brooks law unconstitutional, and erred also
in sentencing under the provisions OF an act
passed subsequently to the granting of the
defendant license under prior laws, the
license having been granted April 4, 1887,
the Brooks act passed in May, and the con-
vicuon taking place in September following.
The court below had held that if convicted it
must be under the Brooks act while the license
was granted under the provisions of an act of
act The Indictment does not charge an ofense
under the act of 1854. Counsel for plaintiff in
error hold that the Brooks act is unconstitu-
tional, and plainly opposed to Section 8 of
Article of the Constitution, which says: mo
bill, except general appropriation bills, shall be
passed containing more than one subject which
shall be clearly expressed in its title" They
then say:
DISCREPANCIES ALLEGED.
The title of the Brooks act reads: "An act
to restrain and regulate the sale of vinous and
spirituous malt or brewed liquors, or any admix-
tures thereof" while the eleventh and twelfth
sections thereof relate to the duty of consta-
bles, the fifteenth relates TO offering for sale
any spirituous, vinous, malt or brewed liquors,
and prescribing penalties therefor. whether
such offering" be with or without license; the
sixteenth section relates to druggists and
apothecaries and prescriptions by physicians;
the seventeenth section to the gift or otherwise
to any person Of any spirituous, vinous, malt OF
brewed liquors on any day on which elections
are held, etc, on Sunday, to a minor, to person
of intemperate habits, etc.; the eighteenth
section to what shall constitute
nuisance and the manner of abating the same,
with special provision for a counsel fee to
the complalnants counsel in such proceedings
and the nineteenth section to the repeal of 'tall
local laws" fixing a license rate or fee less
than is provided for' by said act, and contains
the provision THAT none of the provisions of
this act shall be held to authorize the sale of
any spirituOus, VinOus, malt or brewed LIQUORS
or any admiXtuTe thereof in any city, county.
borough or township having special prohibItory
laws.
PITFALLS FOR THE UNwARY.
1t is held that there is nothing in the title to
lead the most inquiring mind to search through
l7sections, each of which provides pitfall for
the unwary. While ignorance of the law may
not be an excuse, it is held that man is only
bound to know those laws that accord with the
Constitution, which is the expressed will of the
people. and they are only bound to know a law
when its subject is clearly expressed i the
title. This provision is for the express purpose
of preventing snakes from hiding in the folds
OF bills.
On the other side, counsel for the Common
wealth hold that, allowing the Brooks act to be
unconstitutional yet the plaintiff in error is
estopped from obJecting now. as the objection
should have been raised in the trial of the case
In other words they hold that he has passed
out. and cannot come into the game again after
having discovered that his counsel could fur
nish him a cold deck from under their shirt
cuffs His license, they hold. would only pro-
tect him against indictment for selling if he
sold according to law, but wasn't worth bau-
bee as a defense against illegal selling. and it
is further held that it was not necessary to aver
that he knowingly and willfully violated the
law"
The feature of interest in the case is the
claim Of the uneonstitutionality of the Brooks
act