Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1889-11-08
Where Was the Sale Made?

Marriage and death notices must DC soCoAn'
panied by . responsible name.
Where Was the Sale Made ?
The State Supreme Court, sitting at
Pittsburgh, Monday, handed down a de-
cision reversing the Court of Mercer coun-
ty in the Fleming liquor case and discharg-
ing the defendant The opinion of ma
joritr of the Judges is that the sale was
made in Allegheny county, while the dis
scnting opinion Of three Of the Judges is
that it was made in Mercer county. JUS
tice Green said:
.Tn the case of Gabracht VS.. the Com
monwcalth, which was an indictment for
selling liquor without license, we held that
the place Of sale is the point at which goods
ordered or purchased are set apart and de-
livered to the purchaser or to common
carrier, who, for the purpose OF delivery,
represents him. In that case the order tor
for the liquor was solicited and obtained by
the defendants IN the county Of Mercer,
but was sent to his principal, who was Q
Equor dealer in the county of Erie. The
order was executed by the principal, who,
In the county of Erie ut his place of bust
ncss. separated or set apart from his gen
eral stock the liquor ordered, aud delivered
IL to a common carrier to be forwarded to
its destination in Mercer county. We de-
cided that this was no violation Of the law
nrnhfhitinr sales without license, although
neither the defendant who was a travelling
agent. nor his principal held any license
for the sale Of liquor in Mercer county. In
the csse now under consideration the
Gouor was sold upon orders sent by mail by
the purchasers, living in Mercer county, to
the defendant, who il wholesale liquor
dealer In Allegheny county. The goods
were set apart at the defendant's place oi
business in Allegheny county and there de-
liyered to Q common carrier, consigned to
the purchaser at his address in Mercer
county, and by the carrier transported to
Mercer county and there delivered to the
purchaser, who paid the expense Of trans
portation. Upon these facts alone the de-
cision Of this court in the case of Gabracht
supra is directly and distinctly applicable
and requires MS to reverse the Judgment of
the court below unless there are other facts
In the case which distinguish it from the
case &c Gabracht"
AS to the legal and criminal inference
that the sale was made in Mercer and not
I'm Allegheny county the Court says:
This reasoning ignores certain facts
which require consideration. The orders
were sent by the purchasers in Mercer
county by mail to the seller in Allegheny
county. and in the orders the purchaser re-
unestcd the defendant to send the goods c.
u. II. The purchaser. for his own con-
renicncc, requests the seller to send him
the goods with authority in the carrier to
receive the money for them. This method
of payment is the choice Of the purchaser
under such an order, and it is beyond ques-
ton that, 70 far as the purchaser is con-
ccrncd, the carrier is his agent for the re-
ccipt and transmission of the money. OF
course. IL the seller were himself delivering
the goods in parcels upon condition that on
delivery Of the last parcel the price of the
whole should be paid. il would be a fraud
ON the seller If the purchaser, after getting
all the parcels, should refuse to perform
the condition upon which he obtained
them. And under such circumstances the
seller would be entitled to recover the
goods In the case under consideration so
far as the seller is concerned he is satisfied
to take the responsibility of the carrier for
the price, in place Of that of the seller.
He authorizes the purchaser absolutely to
nav the price to the carrier, and if he does
so undoubtedly the purchaser is relieved of
all responsibility for the price, whether the
carrier ever pays the seller or not. But
the carrier il also authorized to deliver the
goods. If he does so and receives the price
he is. of course liable for it to the seller,
but he is equally liable for the price if he
chooses to deliver the goods without re-
ceiring the price. The discretion embodied
In the letters G. o. ID. placed upon a pack
age committed to q carrier is an order to
the carrier to collect the money for the
package at the time of its delivery. 1t is
3 part of the undertaking Of the carrier,
violation Of which imposes upon the car
rier the obligation to pay the price Of the
Article delivered. 1t In at once apparent
that when a seller has delivered the goods
70 carrier with the instructions to collect
the price on delivery to the purchaser he
has performed his whole duty.
THUS far we have regarded the trans
actions between the parties in its aspect as
. civil contract only, but when viewed in
its aspect as q source of criminal prosecu-
ton the transaction becomes much more
clear from doubt 1t is manifest that when
the purchaser ordered the goods to be sent
to him G. o. ID. he constituted the carrier
his agent both to receive the goods from
the seller and to transmit the price to the
delivered to the carrier at Pittsburgh for
the purpose Of transportation the duty of
the seller was performed and the trans
action was completed between the seller
and purchaser. To convert this entirely
innocent and purely civil transaction re-
specting the mode Of collecting the price
Of the goods into crime is, in our judg
ment, grave perversion OF the criminal
law to which we cannot assent As o mat
ter Of course there is an utter absence Of
any criminal intent in the case. Tho de-
fendant had license, the sale was made at
his place Of bushes and both the sale and
delivery were completed within the terri
tory covered by the license. If now
criminal character is to be given to the
transaction it must be done by means of
technical interferehce that the title did not
pass until the money was paid, and thus
that the place of sale, which in point of
fact was in Allegheny county, was changed
a. Mercer county, where no sale was made.
So far as the criminal law is concerned it
is only an actual sale without license tha.
IL prohibited. But there was no such sale,
because all the essential facts which con-
stitute the sale transpired in Allegheny
county, where the defendants license was
operated We therefore hold that the sales
made by the defendant upon orders c. o.
d.. received from the purchasers, were not
in violation of the criminal statute against
sales without license, aud the sentence in
the court below must be set aside. The
Judgment from the Court Of Quarter Ses-
sions Of Mercer county is reversed, and the
defendant is discharged"
Justices Williams, Clark and MeCollum
fled dissenting opinion, holding that the
sending Of the goods c. o. d. made the
carrier his agent. and the transaction,
taken on principal and authority, was
sale and delivery in Mercer county and not
ct Pittsburgh. The Justices hold that in
shipping the goods Fleming did not know
whether he was selling to minor, habit
uai drunkard or q lunatic The law re-
quires that he should know to whom he is
selling. He has no right to break faith
with the law and to retail liquor in small
packages without knowing the age, habit,
sanity or condition of the purchaser when
the sale is consummated.
OK Saturday last President Harrison
issued his proclamation admitting North
and south Dakota to the Union. 1t was
expected that the President would with
hold his proclamation until all four of the
new commoDwealths could come into to-
gether The returns from both the Dakotas
Ia. and fharo u-as M a.eaciou for