The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1903-07-03
VERDICT STANDS.
Supreme Court Declares Adams Law
Constitutional.

In an opinion from which Chief
Justice Beard and Justice Shields
dissent, the Supreme Court of the
State, in session at jackson, yes
terday declared the Adams amend
ment to the now celebrated four
mile law to be constitutional.
The law came before the court
in two cases, that of the State
against Roy Webster and Max
Heilbronner, from Obion county,
and of the State against Samuel
Redfern, from Hardeman county.
The opinion in each case was the
same. In each the contention
made was that the defendants had
a right to sell liquors for the pc
riod for which they held license
from the State, county and town
in which they were located at the
time of the passage of the amend
ment by the last General Assembly.
Heilbronner, one of the defend
ants in the first case mentioned,
and the one in which the opinion
was written. is a member of a To-
cal liquor firm and in the opinion
is declared to be the chief defend
ant in the case, the members of
the Supreme bench declaring that
Webster, in whose name the sa-
loon was operated, was simply an
accomplice of Heilbronner.
The dissenting justices were of
the opinion that the exception in
the former act was intended to he
brought forward and was, there.
fore, part of the law.
The defendants were tried in
Union City by the Circuit Court
of Obion county in May, and SEN
fenced to pay a fine of $50 each
and serve term of sixty days in
the county jail IN accordance with
the wording of the law involved.
These sentences were affirmed and
the defendants remanded to the
jail at Union City to serve out the
time.
Prior to the trial of the case,
lch was shown all the way
through to have been made by the
defendants for the express purpose
of testing the validity of the act in
question, the defendants entering
a motion to quash the indictment,
giving their grounds as follows:
/. The act and those it amends
are vicious class legislation in that
manufacturers are exempt from
their operation and permitted to
sell intoxicating liquors at whole
sale within the prescribed limits.
2. Because the acts violate the
Fourteenth amendment of the con-
stitution of the United States in
da@ying to all citizens equal pro
lection Of law.
This motion was OVerruled by
the lower court and it's action is
sustained by the higher Judiciary.
The facts in the case showed
that w. r. Webster, a brother of
the defendant Roy Webster, had
been engaged in the liquor business
in Union City prior to January 26,
1908, but that ON that date he pur
I chased license for Roy Webster
for one year from that date, al
although he had an unexpired Ii
Ne.
E7Yas shown also that no appar
Nange of the business was
teslntil the 31st of March, the
which an act was passed by
YgisIature abolishing the char
Union City and rechartering
tAer the law in question.
4 kfter that date it was shown
=
Roy Webster, backed by
6ilbronner, called upon the may
For of Union City and demanded
immunity from the police authori-
'sties of the town while they opened
g'the saloon for the purpose of test
ing the law.
This immunity was notpromised,
and as soon as they had opened up