Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-11-01
CANNOT BE REVOKED.
Judge Magee Hands Down an I'm
portant Opinion Relative to
WHOLESALE LIQUOR LICENSES.
Convictions Must Be Twice Made Before
Forfeiture of Rights.
YESTERDAYS SUPREME COURT WORK

An important ruling on the mode of pun
ishment for wholesale liquor dealers who
violate the liquor laws was contained in an
opinion handed down by Judge Magee yes
terday.
The opinion was on the case of James
Tuitle, a wholesale dealer at the corner of
Smallman and Thirty-frst streets. The di-
rectors of the Springfield sub-school district
filed a petition on September 1S, asking for
a rule on Tuitle to show cause why his
license should not be revoked. They stated
that his place adjoins the schoolyard, and
that liquor is sold and consumed on the
premises. and much drunkenness and rowdy-
ism was caused in the neighborhood to the
detrlment of the morals of the school chill
dren.
POINT RAISED BY A LAWYER.
Tuitle denied the charges, and his attor-
ney raised the point that violations of the
punished by revoking his license, but must
be punished under the acts of Assembly by
prosecution, and in no other way.
Judge Magee, in his opinion, ruled on the
legal question. He said that the act of May
licenses on proof of violation OF the law.
In the wholesalers act of May "a, 1887, there
is no provision as a Limitation on the right
to sell liquors, except they shall not sell less
than a quart, and fixes no penalty whatever
for violations of the law. 1t is not intended,
however that the act OF May "a, 1887, con-
tains the only regulation to which wholesale
dealers were to be subjected. If that con-
structIon be placed on the act, they would
be exempt from punishment.
In his opinion, Judge Magee said, the
matter would be simplifed by taking the
act OF May "a as supplement to the act of
May 13, and the same penalties applied;
but as this construction has not been ac-
cepted, they must look to the general laws.
AN ACT AS A GENERAL LAW.
They have the act of March 81, 1856, as
general law, except In so far as Its pro.
visions are altered, modified and repealed
by subsequent Legislation. The subsequent
general acts were OF 1858, 1859, 1867 and
1876. The act of 1856 provides that for the
first violation by q wholesale dealer, upon
conviction there shall be fine of
from $40 to S1OO, and upon the
second conviction a fine and from
one to three months Imprisonment
forfeiture of the license and the culprit in
capacitated for receiving license for five
years thereafter. These penalties are
changed by the act OF 1875, which makes the
fine, upon conviction, ior the first offense
from 5000 to $500, and for conviction OF the
second offense fine of from $500 to 81, 900
and Imprisonment of from three months to
year, with a revocation of the license and
the person to be incapacitated for receiving
license for five years.
In conclusion Judge Magee says: "From
my examination OF the law, 1 am of the
opinion that the penalties for violations of
the law by wholesale dealers are to be found
in the sections of the acts referred to, and
that no revocation of the license can be de-
clared except upon conviction for the second
offense in the Court of Quarter Sessions"
The rule against Tuitle was discharged,