The Monitor-register., 1897-11-12

pE1etOrS Con V1cteO.
The disposition of the indictments
against drivers of beer "arks," charged
With the illegal sale of liquor in the
Gloucester county courts this week, at
tracted a large crowd of citizens interest
I'd in the crusade against beer vendors,
among whom were several ministers aud
members of the Gloucester County Sun
day-school Association, who have been
active in bringing these violators of the
license laws to justice. The case tried
was against Frederick Shuster, Jr.,
which will serve as a test, and upon
which the batch of complaints against
other drivers will either be prosecuted OF
ignored.
Prosecutor Starr, in his argument on
the construction of the law regarding the
offence charged in the indictment, said
the question for the jury to decide was
when the sale of the beer had been con
summated; whether the sale occurred in
Camden county by written order, or, as
the State commended, with the change of
possession. He cited decisions in sim
liar cases in which the Courts universally
held that where a commodity is delivered
and the purchase price is not paid until
the delivery is made, the title to the
commodity does not pass from the vendor
to the purchaser until the actual delivery
of the goods.
Elk Judge Clymer made a forcible argu
ment for the defence, citing cases in
which the Courts held that when COM
modities are bought G. o. D. in one place
and delivered in another place, the sale
and right of possession then passes from
the vendor to the buyer when they agree.
Judge Jessup, in charging the jury,
said: If you fiud that the defendant has
h~abitually sold liquors in this county
without a license from this court, or some
other authorized power, then he is guilty
of keeping a disorderly house. Whether
he has sold in violation of the law oannot
be definitely known until you deioe a
sale. A sale is an absolute transfer of
the title of some property. That is, the
vender r%elinquishes all right to the
property. II the condition is that some
act of the vender or vendee is necessary
before the completion of a sale, that is an
executory act. If the goods are not
specifically designated, then there is no
sale. In this case the defence is that
orders were left in Camden for the
delivery of beer in this county.
The question is whether the title to
| the beer passed from the seller to the
buyer in this county or Camden county.
If there was an agreement whereby the
defendant was to retain title to the beer
until delivery and paid for, then he is
guilty of violation OF the law.
If the goods were delivered G. o. D. by
a servant of the defendant or vendor,
then they remained in possession of the
vendor until the price stipulated was
4a;I Tho aplu nuaotiop raroatp Dhafhar
the ownership changed in Camden or
this county. If there was something to
bs lone by the vendee the risk was with
] him and not with the vendor, aud the
defendant would be guilty of an Illegal
sale. II there was an habitual sale from
three wagons, it constitutes q disorderly
act under the Werts act.
There seems to be a distinction between
the servant or agent of a vendor and a
common carrier. The latter is the repre-
sentative or agent of the vendee, while
the former acts solely for the vendor. If
the sale has been habitual, you shall
convict; if the sale has not been habitual,
a verdict of aoquittal shall be recorded.
Ex-Judge Clymer filed several exceptions
to the Courts charge, and, after enumer-
ating the specific exceptions, excepted to
the charge as a whole. The jury returned
a verdict of guilty.
John G. Irving, indicted for a simila
offence, was placed on trial. A number
of Witnesses testified to buying beer
from the defendant at his home in
Williamstown, but after Prosecutor
Starr had rested his case Assemblyman
Watkins somewhat disconnected the
Prosecutor by moving for the acquitai
of the defendant, owing to the failure of
the State to show by any testimony that
the defendant had sold within the statu-
tory quantity of one quart and five gal
ions. The Court allowed the State to re-
open it's ca Sc and submit the necessary
proof, counsel for defence, however,
taking exception to the State recalling
witnesses. Irving was also convicted.
The case is of interest generally be-
cause of its bearing upon similar rams
actions in this and other counties.