The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-04-25
THE CITY'S SIDE OF IT.
ATTORNEY ADAMS OPINION ON
THE CLUB QUESTION.

The Liability ofthe Clubs to the PAY
ment Of a Liquor License-The Law
Upon Which the Opinion Is Based.
Decision Of the Courts in Georgia
and in Other States.
City Attorney Adams submitted to Mayor
McDonough yesterday his opinion on the
liability of clubs similar to the Ogle-
thorpe Club to the payment of a
LIQUOR license. The document is of much
Importance, in view Of the recent declins-
ton of the Oglethorps Club to take out a
local liquor license.
After brief introduction, the city at
torney says:
During the latter part of August, 1887.
was asked by the then chairman of
the finance committee for an opinion
with reference to the Oglethorpe club, and
after an investigation OF the law and the
facts, gave an opinion TO the effect that
the club did come within the ordinances. [
have investigated the facts only as to this
club, but what l may say will, of course,
apply to any similar institution where the
facts are substantially the same.
Section Is OF our tax ordinance clearly
tail in the city of Savannah any malt. vim
Gus or spirituous liquors shall take out a
license. There is general ordinance, which
has been in force for number of years. to be
found in. section 1881 OF MecDonelI's CITY
Code, which provides that 'any person or
persons who shall keep tipping shop, or
sell by retail in quantities less than one
quart any malt, vinous or spirituous liquors
Whatsoever in any house, BOOTH arbor stall
ar other nlnHa in ba soil otf,- ,,F
Savannah without license. shall, on convic-
ton thereof in the police court, he pun-
ished," etc. So that the controlling cues.
ton is whether the Oglethorpe club is a per-
son selling by retail in the city Of Savan-
nah
Under the Code of Georgia and all the
authorities, the word person. includes a
corporation Code $50, and the fact that
this club was incorporated some years ago
Gas it was, by our superior court, would
only emphasize the distinction between the
buyer and the seller i'll this case. The facts
are, as | am informed that the club. the
corporation, buys and owns the liquor and
sells the same to its members and TO such non.
residents as may be introduced. and Thus
cure the privileges Of the club; that its
membership Is large, consisting of quite
zoo, and that, in point Of fact, it has what
TO all appearances is bar, over which q
considerable quantity of liquor in the aggre-
gate Is sold. 1t appears, by its charter,
that the club was Incorporated chiefly for
social purposes, and, under the charter, the
usuaI powers OF corporation Of
buying and selling are conferred.
Inc purchasers of liquor from the cor
poratlon pay cash or its equivalent, and in
consideration Of such payment the title to
the liquor bought goes out of the corpora
ton into the purchaser, who, by virtue of
such purchase, becomes the owner, aud is
entitled to the use and consumption of the
liquor bought. 1t seems to me that there
is every element of sale present.
THE SALE OF LIQUOR.
Under the Code of Georgia section 1920
three elements are essential to a contract
OF sale: |. An Identification of the thing
sold. 2 An agreement as to the price to be
paid. 3. Consent of the parties" Mr..
Bouvier, in his Law dictionary defines the
word sale as follows: can agreement by
which one of two contracting PARTIES,
called the seller, gives a thing and passes the
title to 1t, In exchange for a certain price
IN current money, to the other party, who
is called the buyer or purchaser, who, on
MS part, agrees to pay such price, In
most, if not all the cases, / suppose there is
not only an agreement to pay the
price OF the liquor bought from the
club, but an actual payment at the time,
IN pursuance of the agreement or implied
understanding. | cannot see how the fact
that the patronage is limited can affect this
question. If the club sells to "a - the fact
that "B' is not permitted to buy cannot
make the sale to "A'' any the less a sale.
Nor can the disposition of the proceeds at
feet the question. 1t will be noticed that
the question submitted to ne is not whether
the club has saloon or a barr0om and
that, under the ordinances, license is re-
quired without regard to this. A person
r1oWy 10 - Al
have saloon or blrroom.
This club seems to have recognized fully
that it was carrying on the business of
retail liquor dealer, because, for some years
past, 1t has applied for and obtained au-
thority from the United States government
to conduct this business, and has paid the
special tax required by the United States
statute. Several years ago l saw the origi-
nal affidavit, made by its treasurer, in
which he averred that the club intended to
engage in the business or occupation Of
retail liquor dealer in the city of Savannah,
on the corner of Broughton and Bull
streets" Upon the filing of this affidavit
and the payment of the tax it has obtained
the governments receipt, which is the
governments authority for carrying on
this business, and which, under the law, the
cluo Is compelled to post up conspicuousY.
have learned, upon inquiry, that the same
anldaVlt has been made for each year since,
The same tax has been paid and the same
authority received. Why the United States
government should be paid and the city not,
apprehend it would not be easy to explain.
Certain 1t is that. under the allegations of
the affidavit referred to, we are obliged to
believe that this club carries on this business
at the place designated.
OTHER SIMILAR GASES.
Citation of authority seems to mo to be I'M
necessary. | am satisfied, however, that the
great weight Of authority would sustain the
opinion given, outside of the emphatic and
complete admission made by the club This
exact question has never been determined
by our supreme court. l have a letter,
received In August, 1887, from the solicitor
general OF the Atlanta circuit, which states
tnat some time before this, the steward of
the Capital City Club Of Atlanta was in
ulcted for the offense of keeping an open
tlpphng house on the Sabbath day, that the
case was defended by the club on the ground
mat the liquors served at the club belonged
10 the members, were not sold for a profit
ana were served only to the members Of tho
cup and their friends visiting the city.
non. Marshall j. Clarke, the presiding
Judge, one Of the best judges and lawyers in
the state, held that the defendant was
guilty, and fined him. The case was
not appealed. In the case Of Minor
against the State of Georgia, reported
IN 63d Georgia, commonly known as the
Albany Glee Club Case" liquor was