The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-05-13
ATTACKS LIQUOR LAW
Case in Appellate Court InVoI-
wing Its COnStitutionaIity.
MAY SESSION ADJOURNS
List Of Decisions Handed
Down for Each Division.

down a number or decisions LOT tbs uINI-
sion, and also for the Eastern and Western
divisions.
A very important case which to some
extent involves the c0nsdtuEonality Of
the state liquor law, was argued by Fred
w. Bentley for the plaintiff in error ana
Judge NIyatc and John Adams for the de-
PENDANT IL error, the case having been
appealed from the district court Of Sedg-
wick county. 1t is the case of H. J. Vol
lacott, a wine grower and shipper Of Cali
fornia, against Case & McNeal, formerly
in business in this city. When the rase
was brought in the district court a de-
murrer was sustained TO the plaintiff s
petition, TO which he excepted, and the
case was then taken 70 the appellate court
for review on the point of the demurrer.
The record shows that in 1923 Wo.lacott
sold and delivered 10 the defendant F. O.
B. at Los Angeles, Cal, an original pack
age Of wine which was shipped to de-
PENDANTS in this city. The plaintiffs at
torney contends this was no violation Of
law. inasmuch as the operation and effect
of the prohibitory laws of Kansas, in the
exercise of its. police power, did not at
tach Itself to the use of this wine until
after Case & NIcNeal received the bill Of
fading and obtaintd possession thereof
The plaintiffs attorney also claims IN his
argument that the demurrer in this case
should not be sustained. for the reason
that the importer had a right to sell in the
original package, free from the interfer-
ence of the state laws, and IN such right
was rejected by the constitution Of the
:. f1r.
congress 10 permit a state to destroy a
was protected by the constitution Of the
United States. Mr. Bentley. as attorney
for the plaintiff, cites several authorities
on the subject including the famous South
Carolina injunction suit. and claims that
the judgment Of the district court sJs-
tanning the demurrer, should be reversed.
The judges Of the appellate court viii de-
liberate on the case from the briefs fled,
and their ruling VIII be watched with in
terest.
The following cases were disposed of
yesterday:
Emma =. Hildinger vs.. Kate NJ Tootle
ct al; appealed from Reno county. Sub
mftted on briefs.
S. w Shattuck vs.. Charles A. Adam
son ct al; appealed from Sedgwick coun-
ty Continued as per stipulation Of both
parties to suit
B. r. Royse, sheriff vs.. Allen NJ Har-
ris ct al; appealed from Sedgwicll county.
Argued by Mr.. Brubacher for plaintiff and
Mr.. Sankey for defendant and submitted
on briefs
.ii'iiS "Ne7.filenI 90. vs.. Leroy Law
a. dL'ea-e" rom harper county.
I-.'Iil.Ieu Oy Sl-''I't on Of Doth parties.
ieii'y eLu tasua'ly company OF New
Oh vs. r. NJ ooer; appealed from Reno
ui'ly Argued by I. NJ Williams for
P'ai"uI ana H. NJ. All Tor defendant and
submitted on orieis-
Missouri racine f'aHWay company vs..
MIS- Kay Wen; appealed from Reno
county; submitted on briefs.
NJ snyder vs.. LonS-Bed Lumber
Company e1 a.; Appealed from Sumner
'uulE- Argued Tor Plaintiff by r. A.
N4nAeN. ana submitted in briefs
o. Il h2yse, sheriff vs. Claud Aldrich
e al; appealed from SedCwick county;
"lotlon by defendant to dismiss appeal
argued by Mr. Sankey for plaintiff and
MT. 7a\maker Tor defendant, and sub
mitted on briefs
A-daee F. Walker ct al. rs. y. A. Cu1-
man; appealed from Cow.ey county. Ar
gued for plaintiff by O. J. Wood, and sub
iH,r,eu On bros,
"7 'ohA Deere 80" company Us. John
1'''"ii an, apoe7.ed from hinsman county.
ASo74 'F J'nn W. Roberts for defend
an. ,-,, ana Su' I'M. 'e4 on briefs.
Arkansas City Canning company q Al.
H. i''.-N''-' AN1eaied from
"''> COUNTY submitted on briefs
fr1Nf~