Albuquerque daily citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1895-1903, 1903-06-09

al were s%urplussage and must stand
for naught. because they are included
in the words amy vacancy" We be-
lieve it to be a universal rule of con-
struction tnat when general words fol
low particular and specific words. the
general words are confined, in mean
ing. to the things of like kind and ma
ture designated by the specific words.
Sutherland on Stat. Const. sec.
26S:
Jensen V. State, 10 N. w. Rep.
37s CWis).
State V. Dennison. so N. w. Rep.
1888 (Neb.).
In the Wisconsin case, supra, an
indictment was found under a section
of the law which provided, IF any
tavern keeper or other person shall
sell. give away, or barter any intoxi-
eating liquors on the first day of the
week. commonly called Sunday, or on
the day of the annual town meeting, or
the annual election, such tavern keep
er or other person so offending, shall
he deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. +"
The words or other perCcn" following
the words tavern keeper would
seem to have been used in the very
broadest sense. The indictment
charged the defendant with having
sold liquor on Sunday in violation of
this statute, without changing his oc-
cupation. The lower court held that
the words 'or other person" included
any and all persons. The supreme
court of Wisconsin, however, in con-
STRUNG this section of the law said:
THE words taver keeper indi-
Gated very clearly the class of persons
against whom the act was aimed, and
the general words, other persons
must under the familiar rule, noscitur
a sociis. be taken to mean a similar
class of persons and not to he ex
tended so as to include all persons
and cite a long list of authorities in
support of such construction. They
further say the words tavern keeper
as used in this statute. clearly means
a person a part at least of whose
business is to sell intoxicating
liqours," and apply the rule above
quoted. The words other persons
must be held to mean persons whose
business either in whole or in part is
to sell such drinks" In the Nebraska
case, supra, Dennison was indicted
under section 225 of the criminal code
which is as follows: IF any person
-l,l1 l,,a, a- nrNn Hitch n
owner or otherwise. any lottery o.
game of chance in this state etc
The Indictment charged that Dennisol
opened and established a lottery o
game of chance within the state. Ate
/ the jury was sworn, defendants attol
| ney objected to the introduction of an,
! testimony for the reason hat the IN
e dictment did not state a crime, he
cause it did not allege that Dennisoi
= opened and established a lottery a
owner, or in some similar capacity
The objection to the introduction G
h testimony was sustained, and the de
o PENDANT was discharged, Under a rul
of practice in Nebraska, the prosecu
ing attorney may file exceptions in tn
y supreme court to the rule of the lowe
court, for the purpose of having tn
e law settled, and it was done in tn
y case. The supreme court said: "
was not error on the part of the lowe
d court to exclude evidence under Il
information claimed to allege a erin
under section 225, and which did m
allege the capacity in which the d
II PENDANT acted in opening and esta
C. fishing the lottery therein mentioned
In short, a perusal of the Nebrast
n case, supra, discloses the constru
:" ton that the word otherwise" fl
a. lowing the word owner was restriC
-, CONTINUED IN mar, five