The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1894-01-20

rnn e4NoPsrs or DErEsfoxs As
HANDED Dowx.


s3rrene ccAr4-gehr W s,kStoa. ctsct
z4tes n. r. c1lres sa1 T }. Hrcrn,
s.s1clAsesi g = Morris. cit1ks r1.irf
ieektea * Aasssr5
Atss1n. Texas, g4tNSrs y lbs supreme
zo4si. h&psed doHa .As r6lssHsfg 55nsssiz
seref14t
r.. y Drake -. ne sikiH srsm
gstnes actson Ga illsor dsalsfs bora
8 fseoves se-1aitg fnr 81 & srfsnss arg
! z.Acr - enter ara stnAln ia tAe hons
* riaca * snNnsss wAese isansr waA
Action was hrough; Anrraa !. la. And %
re 18Th su3ETnsns was Esvsa pizzngih
ttotn wAsca tsls neps~l Is rrcseerted IRIS
sudgraers AMa nrss affirmed, TT was A.
IL wAres rrverned ard dismissed on liz
ground 0szs The Nav gipias Ebe penalty
waA rspaaled 81 the ACT OK tha lexislAtsrs
FfesentAa 70 TIE governor On May s ISL
fGsaeFal laws q zsss 3. ITS 40 error IS
lsuna n re coaclusinns first reeehsd
II x e conceded that the repeal OF the
s4x e. wtfeh the hetspn was bassd ren1-
iny appaSl woaid require reversal q
tns lregu1ent ana dismissal % tne as
zen. j. 1ec0t1eS necessary 20 .n1Qlre
whether the iaw on arfScb tlie action was
ka4ea ras repealed ~ tns sei PASSED resl-
saE sHpeal.
Ihe ATS in force st the time the bond
sized uppn MAS executed and - the time
TIE brezca Is alleged differed from the sel
~ isai ~ many kespects. not hayins a.
fe,t application II she dles imposed upon
kqtoz dealers nor 70 their liabilities -
Ftaaires for breach ct the many c1ndi-
,ipns requir@d IA their bends BY The Former
laws as weli as By TIE act Of 1884, and
ths AZ iast NAMED in terms repealed al
Laws In conflict with ii
This evidences tise opinion 81 the l@gis
Sagcfe that Horie Of the prpFlElons OF The
former i5B were 10 conflict wish The laser
act and trtends insofar to repeal such
5gnant laws. but w1ien this result =
rssched the repeating CLAUSE j. satisfied
and All parts al the former iasv not SO
repugnant must be lield il force ard opera
tive UPON ali tfs1uSact ions 70 which they
Apply. The cosry ~ civil appeals aftsf
eprueratirs the matters q which the
claitnesi by appellant held thai none Of
these differences affected the question be-
l fore them except <hpss found between seq
tion or the act Of 1881 and section . cf the
art o. isss. These sections 81 these two'
acts are those winch prescribe the bonds
gage ii the sale Of hquorS their conditions
#Ed ssse psnait (which ray be recovered
Tor a breach.
Tha sections Of the laws referred to
aaca required a bond 10 be executed 70
tne sum Of Sac0. eacn among otfr-s re-,
/ anired bond containing the condition
.1fIak he or thcy viii mol permit any per-
son under the age OF q years to enter
ard remain 10 such house or pluce of bust
i ness" and each declares thai I'm addition
l - proceedings for indiwdfial .nIllt3as
/ Brought on said bond as where indicated
x f4.-@.-
/ soiss shaii Violate any Of the conditions Of
ssle buzsti herein requigzd, ii Hnail be the
1n,y Of the county End district attorneys
or either 81 them to institute suit therefor.
| In the name OF the State OF Texas for the
age and benefit Of tbA county and the
amount Of 500 az a penalty shall be re-
scsY,.serrss fsssss taz principals or saxesies
upon a breach o. any Of inc conditions
thereof.
1'he act Of 1893 was prospective ID its
operation. and there IS n6fhlng IN II iuds.
eating intentlun 70 withdraw absolutely
or on terras from persons who had liccnse
70 sell liquors at the time Il WAS enacted.
Tho ristst - do SO N accordance with the
Heense already obtafaed 50 long az it
should under ITS iarrns remain 10 force
Their right 70 do 50 under such IeEislatioH
you'd not be questioned. Under such leg
persons who ny payment OF the gum de-
nauded ard SSecia don of the bond required
had acquired the right 70 sell prior 10 the
passage u the later law were not iiftendec
10 be sun held liable for the penalty Fms
teRed lar breach OF conditions OF the ba1d
Under which the right 10 sell was acquired
ana especially 50 when both laws imposed
the safno penalty for the breach Of the
same conditions, X can mol be believed
that the legislature intended that PERSONS
Who had acquired the right % sell before
the cnactnsent OF tie lntsr law should ex-
eFcise that right without obligation iHi-
| posad is The bond exaeted before tAat
fight could be acquIred and without la
! bliity for The penalty prescribed for breach
| 81 any u ita conditions while thosa VINO
acquired the right under INC later law
| should be TINS bound and lIanle,
THE sole ground on which the Judgment
81 the district conrt was reversed and the
cause dismissed vas thas, under the law
| ia force at the tiiue the liccnse Was ~
| sued bond executed, Violated and penalty
recovered, the bnnd related TO the business
OF selling The specified liquors generally
WITHOUT reference 70 the place where they
might be drunk While the Aet Of 1888 re-
| auIrca Tho sanp kind Of q bond To be exe-
/ rufed ~ relation 20 the sale II sucn liquors
| 10 be drunk al Inc place where sold.
/ in This respect Tho later law Was Thought
| 10 he 20 III conilct wtth the former az to
/ opefasr lts repeal; hui Il Is believed thnt
an examination OF TIE statutes wfIi sfew
! that There wAs no repugpatiny whatever u
ifl!H respect between the farls
/ me aet e Asfeh ~ sssl' rs9l'ired q
/ bond 10 ia Rle9a ii relation e The Nllsl
4 ilcss cf Nseliing spirltpas, vinops Or malt
i HOURS or me4irase1 bittefs capable pf
/ DraducsnK lnfoxieaiios, III quantities less
/ lhzn anegs Nlliie the act Of le@ re-
| auired The Aand % pc given 70 relation 70
| fte sfsle Of the Same kind 81 HaupsN III airy
/ o..aftity. 80 be drunk "a the pfemISes,
Yhe hond required under both Laws Was
/ festtlsad Is be conditioned fhat the seller