The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1890-12-22
South Dakota's Package Case
Goes Adversely TO the
Defendants.
Failure TO Establish Numerous Prop
ositions Makes the Seller Amen
able TO State Law.
Heavy Verdict Against the President
OF the Dakota Insurance
Company.

PIERRE, \. D., Dec. 2O.--In the cele-
brated original package case OF the state
OF South Dakota VS.. Geo. III. Chapman
and William Noller on writ OF error,
the supreme court has rendered . de-
elsion adverse TO the defendants. This
was an action wherein the defendants
were Informed against In the county
court Of Lincoln county for keeping D
common nuisance by selling intoxicating
liquors as beverage, and willfuily and
nnlawfully permitting persons 20 resort
To rooms ands buildings where such liQ-
uOrs were sold. Before the commence
ment of the trial, defendants applied
for change of judges on the ground
that the judges were prejudlced against
the defendants, and the application
was supported by the affldavlts OF seven
other citizens of Lincoln county. The
court denied the application, stating
that the affidavits set out no facts upoo
which to predicate the alleged prejudice.
but were simply expressinns.of conciu-
sion. A jury was empanelled, trial
had. verdict of guilty rendered against
the defendants, and each was sentenced
TO pay fine of $3.50 and To be impris-
oned for sixty days. During the trial o.
great number OF objections were inter
posed to the admission and rejection Of
evidence. and rulings OF the court upon
the law. Upon the right OF the defend
ants 10 have change Of judges on the
ground Of prejudice, the supreme court
says:
ssThe statute does not allow the defend-
ant 10 change the Judge unless the court Is
satisfied that prejudice and bias Is 80 great
that an impartial trial cannot be had, aud
"a.
than one affidavit OF defendant, even though
supported by others. such facts and cir
cumstances must be proven by affidavit, or
otter intrinsic testimony, as show the exist
ence OF q bias and pFe1ndice on the part OF
the Judge against the defendant before =
change u required % be made.
The fact OF the sale of Intoxicating Iiqn8Tx
by the defendant was clearly established by
evidence, but the~effect Of 0nE state cons4a-
tuition and the laws regulating Rhe sale uf
Intoxicating liquors was alleged hx ms de-
1aaY NGFW nNHKszaM tf wFsKsnM6 w@1A@&v@s
After review OF all the evidence In
the case the court In well conslderea
and elaborate opinion, holds that Tor the
defendants 10 receive immunity under
the decision of the supreme court OF the
United States In the case OF Lusy vs..
Hardin, commonly known as the original
package case, they must show at hrst
that they are foreign importers or agents
of foreign importer Of beer or liquors.
second, that as such agents they re-
eeived an importation Of beer or liquor
from another state or foreign country.
Third, that they are as such importer
or agents selling this importation by
the original nnbroken package In whichft
was imported. Fourth, that they are not
making their house OF business q tipping
concern or rendezvous or persons, bring
ing II within the police power OF the
state TO declare IL nuisance. All these
facts must be fully established by the
defendants In order TO make the trans
action legitimate under the decision.
The failure 10 establish any OF these
propositions make seller Of tntoxlcat-
Ing LIQUOR amsnabie TO the state law.
The court further holds that when bot
ties OF whisky or beer, each sealed up Ia
paper wrapper and closely packed to-
gether In uncovered wooden boxes fur
nished by the importer, and these
wooden boxes marked TO the address Oh
the agent and shipped from one state %
another, the wooden boxes aud not the
bottles constitute the original package
within the meaning OF the decision Oh
the supreme court of the United States
| The court finds the defendants have
| failed 10 establish such facts as Will en-
title them to any immunity from the
penalties OF the state law and order thai
the judgment OF the court be enforced.