Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-08-31

District Of Columbia, !" approved August %. A.
D. ISL and the smendnsnts 10 said act. q
shown by the said amendments to said
section 4, in the oct entitled 'Chapses
So, an act 70 amend an Get entitled
An act imposing . hcense on trades.
business and professions In the District Of ool-
umbia, approved August IS, 1871; and provid-
ing for the enforcement and collection Of 6ne<
and penalties for carrying on business in said
District without license, approved June 10.
ls72"
TEE SAu DECISION.
The controversy as TO the law In the case
raised by Mr. Haxelton two days altar demand
ing Mr.. Dumons's resignation has revived the
interest felt by large number Of people In the
Naa decision The act under which the SUI
preme Court Of the District arrived at its con-
ciusions in the Nan case provides in section q:
That every person liable for license tax who
failing 70 pay the same within thirty days after
the same has become due and PAYABLE, for such
neglects shall, in addition 20 the license tax i'm
posed pay fine or penalty Of not Ices than ss
nor more than ESQ. and a like fine or penalty
for every subsequent onense"
Section provides that the proprietors Of
bar rooms sample rooms and tipping houses
shall paw S100 annually. Every place except
an spothecary store where distilled or fermented
liquors. wines or cordiais are sold in iess GUAM
titles than one pint at q time 10 the same pur-
chaser shall be regarded as a bar room. sample
room or tipping house"
section 10 provides. That every place where
distilled or fermented liquors are sold in lees
qnannties than one pint 20 be drank on the
premises shall, unless kept by apothecaries,
be known as a bar room, samps room
or tipping house, as the case NAV be:
and II shall be the duty of the proprietor Of
every such place to present with bis application
for Incense the written permission Of majority
OF the owners Of real estate. &c"
On June 20, 1872, section 4, relating 20 the
payment OF license tax, was amended 80 ne 10
read as follows; That every person liable
for license tax who may fail to paw the same
before engaging in the business for
which the license NAV be required shall.
N addition 20 the license tar imposed pay a
nne or penalty OF not less than IS nor more
than $50 for each offense. 20 be imposed and
coheeteo as provided In this act. Commercial
agents, managers Of theatrical per
formsnces, exhibitions and concerts
for gain mot including exhibitions and concerts
given by or for the benefit OF religious or chart-
able institutions or societies. beer gardens cir
cnsses, gift enterprises and race courses, one
half to the use of the informer.
WHERE TIE INFORMATION WAS FAULTY.
Then comes the milk in the cocoanut. The
Supreme Court shows wherein the information
in the Nau case was faulty, and /,
decided in advance that the prosecu-
tons as they were being conducted
oy Mr. Dumont when he was 30 unceremoni-
ously ousted because Of his energy were sound
in every particular and would receive
the hearty support of the court in case a
light should be carried to its Jurisdiction.
Says the court: ''ft will be observed that the
information has no reference whatever nor no
statement In 1t of failure on the part Of the
DEFENDANT to comply with the provisions Of
section 4, rs originally enacted or as
amended in 1872 There Is no charge In this
information that the defendant failed 70 paw the
license tax within thirty days after the same
had become due and payable. nor il there any
charge that the defendant, being liable for the
Incense tax; failed TO pay the same before en-
gaging In the business of keeping bar room
1t is claimed on the part of the counsel for
defendant fhst those are. especially the latter
clause which L read or stated as
being in the same act Of 1872. amending
the fourth section of the original act. words
which provide for the penalty aud enforcing
the penalty by &C ion and also provide for the
collection Of the tax itself because the provision
Is that unless they shall pay this tax they SHALL
on conviction, on failursl be compelled to
pay the tax, together with PEN
atty not exceeding fifty dollars; and
that the charge Of q dereliction of duty under
this act made in the information IL in relation
to matters, as far as this prosecution is con-
cerned, entirely inconsequential- That it
simply alleges that the party was
engaged in the keeping Of tipping
house, describing it in proper terms under the
act, but nowhere is il alleged that there 10 q
failure to pay the tax. II is claimed that not
outstanding the party may not have received
bis license be has paid his tax. and il 10 the
failure to pay the tax that is made the sub
Iect OF prosecution by this act.
1t Is answered by counsel for the District that
this Is an objection that cannot be awaited OF
after verdict, and it is objected further
that the objection cannot be availed
Of upon a writ Of error taken under the
have selected eertiorari as the remedy to chal-
lenge the Jurisdiction of the court. but we
think, In the first place, that the objec-
ton TO this information on the part Of
the counsel for the defendant ia wen taken
1t Is evident that the object Of the passage
OF this statute was to collect q revenue, and il
Is NOT in the way OF mere penaty for ceiling
intoxicating liquors, nor is il specially directed
to persons who engage in the tranic
Of intoxicating liquors II relates
to the issuing Of license 10
parties in the District who may be engaged
In the various trades and business and 10 in no
sense q penal act. II is revenue act and the
object is to collect revenue, assess taxes and
collect the same, and the penal part
Of is is for failure TO pay the tag
assessed. Now. looking at this Information We
do not discover that the counsel, In framing
tne inforfnauon, nave included the vital pro-
visions Of the statute with reference to the COL
lection OF the revenue and il does not
charge failure on the part Of the de-
PENDANT to comply with those provisions. The
information must be regarded then as wholly
ineffective in not charging the only offense
which Is provided for in this act They have
failed to include the vital part of il 90
us to give force and effect TO the
information, and to give Jurisdiction 10 the
court, and we think that that being the ca sc
there can be no question that under the act OF
1891, which is sn extension of the
jurisdiction Of the police court. and pro-
vision for the trying OF cases in the court
by jury and provision for the trying Of cases
in the court by jury the case Is properly
here. That act especially provides for
taking exceptions 10 the ruiings Of the
court upon questions of law and the instruc-
tons to the jury, for the taking Of bulls
of exceptions, and for the allowance and return
10 this court and its siisposiiion in this court;
and provision is further made that except as
the final judgment Of the Police Court shall be
affected by the proceeding Ia error
the Judgment Of the Police Court shall
be final, thereby excluding every other remedy
either by appeal or eertiorsri for AN error COM
mitted by the police court. except this remedy
by proceeding in error We think that Is an
answer TO everything that is said
by counsel for the District in reference
to this not being the appropriate remedy. but
that il the defendant wished TO challenge the
Jurisdiction Of the Police Court he would
have resorted to certiorari Certiorsri 4
H. g.