Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-04-12
FOR DEFENDANT.
Judge Hall So Orders Jury to
Return Verdict
In Case Of Corbin & Company vs..
Peter A. HouIehan.
Plaintiffs Sued to Recover Balance Due
on Alleged Liquor Bill.

". S. CHOATk;. Clerk.
THOMAS LEIGH. County Attorney.
A. l.. McFADDEN, Sheriff
FRED w. LEE, Stenographer
Augusta, April II.
In the kennebec county superior
court. Friday afternoon, His Honor,
Judge Hail. directed the jury to return
>. verdict for the defendant in the case
Of Fl. +. Corbin & Co. of Cincinnati,
Ohio, VS.. Peter A. Houlehan of Gardi-
ner. The jury did as directed without
leaving their seats. This was an ac-
ton to recover q balance of S34SS So al
legged to be due the plaintiff for liquors
sold the defendant, and a novel point
in law was involved. Arson NJ. God
dard Esq, of Augusta, appeared for
the plaintiff, and Beane & Became of
Hallowell, for the defence
Counsel Goddard for the plaintiff
sought to establish a new point by
making dealers in cOntraband liquors
liable for the payment of debts con-
tracted for liquors. He held that the
purchase of these liquors was an in
te! state commerce transaction and
such a case. In support of this view
he cited the rulirg of the courts in
criminal cases where the interstate
commerce act has been involved, in
which it is has been decided that the
State laws do not apply.
The criminal cases on which counsel
relied are the well-known Lewiston and
Iowa cases.
Tho Lewiston case is that of United
States VS.. Intoxicating liquor by
libel" in which the Grand Trunk Rail-
way Co. was claimant and appellant.
The case involved the seizure of bar
rel containing 50 gallons of ale. marked
to "Defunct Moncul," Lewiston, Me-,
from car of the corporation while it
was on a siding on the east side of
Main street at Auburn, Me-, Oct. g.
1899. The decision of the Auburn mu-
nicipaI court was in favor of the Off
Ger and the case was sent up to the
law court.
The decision was against the seizure
Associate Justice William Penn White
house of Augusta, who drew the opin-
ion. held that the goods were in transit
and that the seizure was made before
the delivery of the goods by the con-
signor, hence 1t was premature and
unauthorized.
The justice said that while intoxi-
eating liquors continue to be recog-
nized by federal authorities as a Legal
subject Of interstate commerce, that a
clause of the Revised Statutes of Main.
which declares that mo person shall
knowingly bring into, the State any in
toxicatinS liquors with intent to sci
the same in violation of the law mus,
be held imperative, as repugnant tc
the constitution of the. United States
Counsel Beane for the defendant
cited Section Sc, Chapter q, of the Re
vised Statutes, which provides that "nC
action shall be maintained upon any
claim or demand, gpromissory note o.
other security contracted or given fol
intoxicating liquors sold in violation o
the law, or for any such liquors pur
chased out of the State with the in
tentiOn to sell the same or any par
thereof in violation thereof; but thi'
section shall not extend to negotiable
paper in the hands of a holder for +;
valuable consideration and WITHOUT no
tice of the illegality of the contract
After the evidence had been present
ed. His Honor, Judge Hall, in a pr
forma ruling, spoke as follows: "Fo
A years we have had a statut