The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1892-05-12

IT MAY LESSEN THE FLOW OF LIQUOR
INTO THE STATE OF MAINE.

IT MAY LESSEN THE FLOW OF LIQUOR
INTO THE STATE OF MAINE
A case of great interest to liquor deal
ers and temperance people was settled by
the opinion sent down by the full bench Of
the Supreme Court of Massachusetts at
Boston May 9th. 1t is the suit of Chester
ID. Graves Il Sons, wholesale liquor deal
ers Of Boston, against Walter B. johnson,
proprietor OF hotel in Bangor, Me-, to
recover s25S. "A for liquors sold to him,
with interest since April 30, 1890, when
the first demand was made for payment.
The case was tried before Judge Bishop
without a jury in the January term, 1891,
Walter l.. Church and Albert Pratt APP
pealing for the plaintiffs, and C. c. Powers
for the defendant. The court found for
the plaintiffs in the sum of e276. ST.
The defendant appealed to the supreme
court on the ground that, while the court
found, in fact, that the contract of sale
was made with knowledge on the part of
the plaintiffs that the liquors were to be
resold i'll Maine, and with a view to such
resale, the court refused to rule that the
same rendered the sale void. The excep-
ton was taken on this ruling, and the
| supreme court sustained it and declares
| the sale void.
Judge Holmes, in submitting his opin-
| ion, said:
! This is an action for the price of intoNi-
eating liquors.
1t is found that they were sold and de-
| livered in Massachusetts by the plaintiffs
| to the defendant, a Maine hotel keeper
with Il view of their being resold by the
defendant in Maine against the law of
| that State. These are all the material
facts reported; but these findings, we
| must assume, We're warranted, as the evil
dence is not reported 50 that no question
of the power of Maine to prohibit the sales
| is open.
The only question is whether they, as
| stated, show a bar to this action.
| The question is to be decided on princi-
| pies which we presume would prevail gen
orally in the administration Of the com
mon law in this country Not only should
it be decided in the same way in which we
should expect a Maine court to decide
upon a Maine contract presenting similar
question, but it should be decided as we
think that Maine court ought to decide
this very action were it brought there.
| Judge Holmes quoted English cases
where the right to disregard the revenue
laws of other countries has been asserted,
and contracts to that end sustained. He
observes, however, that the assertion of
| that right is made in the interest of Eng
lish commerce, although there may be a
question how far the actual decisions 90 be-
yond what would have been held in the
| case of an English contract affecting any
English laws.
'Of course, continues the decision,
lit would be possible for an Independent
State to enforce all contracts made within
| it, without regard to how much they
might controvert the policy of its neigh
| bor laws, as a general proposition that
an agreement to the laws of a foreign
country would be invalid.
son the other hand, it plainly would
not be enough to prevent Il recovery of
the price that the seller had reason to be
| ieNe that the buyer intended to resell the
goods III violation of law In order to
| charge him with the consequences of the
| act of an intervening wrong doer, you
must show that he actually contemplates
| the act. -
After defining the middle ground be-
| tween these two extremes, Judge Holmes
| continues:
| If the sale would not have been made
| but for the seller $ desire to induce an un-
| lawful sale in Maine, it would be an lul-
| lawful sale on the principle explained in
| Hayes VS.. I1Nue I'ark. loo Mass. OH.
| We assume (in this case) that the sale
would have taken place whatever the buy
| er had been expected to do with the goods.
But we understand the Judge to have found
| that the seller expected and desired the
buyer to sell unlawfully in name, and in
tended to participate in his doing so, and
| that he was known 10y the buyer to have
that intent. The question is whether
| the sale is saved by the fact that the in
tent mentioned was not the controlling
| indncement to it.
1t appears to us not unreasonable to
| draw the line in this case as it was drawn
in Webster VS.. Munger, and to say when
the illegal intent Of the buyer is not only
known to the seller. but encouraged by
the sale as first explained the sale is void.
The acc"mplice is none the less an itc COM
| plice that he is paid for his act
One ground Of the decision in Webster
VS. Munger is that contracts like the pres
ent are void
In the majority "f this court this case
is governed 10y Webster VS.. Munger, and
we believe that il would have been decid
ed as we have decided it, if the action had
| been brought in Maine instead of here.
| Exceptions sustained.