Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-11-01
THE RIGHTS.OF A HOST.
He Cannot Be Punished for Giving
Liquor to His Sunday Guests.
A SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Judge Kennedy Talks Plainly to Criminal
Court Jury.
THE NEWS Of THE COUNTY COURTS

Nineteen decisions were handed down in
the Supreme Court yesterday. The most
interesting opinion was by Justice Will
Jams in the case of the Commonwealth
against Carey and three others The de-
PENDANTS were Perkins detectives, employed
by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company to
search for train wreckers in Lawrence
county. They sought to work up the case
by furnishing liquor to persons whom they
tried to make drunk. The defendants were
sent to the werkhouse for several months
Justice Williams said: ''This question is
based on the question of prohibiting the
use of liquors by private citizen on his
own table on Sunday, or making it
misdemeanor to furnish them to his own
family or guests in his own house. In the
title of the act of 1887 we learn that the
object is to RESTRAIN and regulate the sale
of Intoxicating liquors. There is no hint
at a purpose to restrain and regulate the
use of them by private citizens in their
own dwellings 1t would not carry out the
spirit of the law to close saloons on cleo
tion day and allow candidates for office to
open up private rooms for the purpose of
treating voters, or TO prohibit the sale of
liquor on Sunday and allow saloonkeepers
to distribute it gratis
The Rights of a Host
s'But if for reasons of health or habit one
chooses TO have for himself, his family or
his guests, liquor in his house, there is no
law forbidding him to do so. II the jury in
this case had found that the camp used by
the men was the defendants home while en-
gagged in the legitimate and important busi-
ness they were engaged to do and that the acts
complained of were of hospitality and ex-
tended to guests, they should have acquitted
them. The precise point now before us is
that the criminal law of this State does not
make it a misdemeanor for a citizen to
drink Intoxicating liquors in his own
house, or to furnish such liquors to his
guests or to the members of his own house. |
hold. If the defendant can bring himself |
within this rule be should be acquitted. |
The judgment of the lower court is now
reversed and a new trial ordered" |
Justice Mitchell delivered the opinion in |
the case of Oil City against the Oil City |
Trust Company. The suit was to recover o |
municipal tax on banks for the years 1887 |
to 1890 inclusive and trust companies. The |
court held that since the act of 1885, cities |
of the third class have no right to levy |
euOii a ldA, thO SAlSbiuS Oull ny CA
press legislation. In consequence he re-
versed the decision of the lower court, en-
tering Judgment for the citv for $780, the |
tax tor 1887 and 1888, and for the defendant |
as to the tax for 1889 and 1890.
A Johnstown Flood Suit.
The case of Gill against the Johnstown |
Lumber Company, decided by Justice Hey- |
drick, is a peculiar case. 1t is one in which |
Gill recovered in the lower courts for lot |
of logs, which were swept away BY the |
Johnstown flood before they had been de-
livered to the defendants property The |
latter won their appeal
The list Of rendered is as follows:
srERRETT, j.
Cochran VS. sanderson. c. P westmore-
land county; affirmed
James Kennedy VS. C. L. Poor. C. p ve-
Board of Missions, ETC., VS. William Culp,
c. P. Westmoreland: reversed.
John Elkin VS. j. A. Timblin, c. P. Jefrer-
Son: affirmed.
John B. Scott, for use etc., VS. E. c. Hough,
c. p. Westmoreland: reversed.
Nancy Bair, administratri2, VS. Frishkorn
Br s., Z. p. Armstrong; affirmed.
Alex littster VS. Sarah Littster, c. P. Indi-
McKay's appeal, C. P. Washington; af-
firmed.
WILLIAMS j.
Elmer Cougle VS. Mckee & Wilson, c. P
Northampton; reversed.
Commonwealth VS. Work, appeal from
Lawrence county; reversed.
Appeal of Simcox from Venango; re-
versed.
Commonwealth VS. Carey and same VS.
same, Lawrence reversed.
MITCHELL, j.
Welsh VS. London Assurance Corporation,
C. p, Venango; affirmed.
Oil City VS. Oil City Trust Company, C. P.
Nenango; reversed.
Brooks vs. the Wire Nail Company, c. P.
Lawrence; affirmed.
Brown VS. Barnes, C. P. Clarion: reversed.
Thomas VS. Miller, c. P. Armstrong: af-
firmed. |
HEYDRIcK, j.
Gill VS.. the Johnstown Lumber COMPANY
Z. p. Cambria county; reversed.
Walters VS. McElroy, c. p. Clarion; re
versed. |