The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1904-11-22

~,
Iassd az lrst
II az onaI ties
" u pased Tor eco11a offenses he
~ Increased punish men ttached 70 the
u he second t5{ snse some
sGas tfie add bona pun shment may
stbe$a consequence Of III Fl fl onensey
4 alise tli1slrt the mission of and
! COM: ctton fort he second o1fense.
The s,7ender beng fully apprIsed Of
4 tic consequences @hich would foyr
4 !r9u: q second consictfon. before the.
secozIG olrense was committed can
hlot complain Of the law. He knew,
81 IS Dresuned5to have known before
I.ele commission Of the second ofense,.
! all IN e. penalties denounced against:
tx, Ore convicted under such a stat
ute cannot Justly complain tlet his:
1 form er transgressians have been
brought up in Judgment against him.
suc1. are the views Of Judge Daniels
5gho prepared the opinion IN The Rand
c,se.
The supreme Court Of Massachu-
sets has held The same way, basing.
it& aecision on the, principles that
The Punishment W2s for the last Of
Tense and was rendered more se-
vcre IN consequence Of the situation
into which the party had previously
brought himself; that the law did not
impose a second punishment FOR the
irst ofrense, but only imposed a
higher punishment on one a second
time convicted, because the{ former
punishment had proved inefIlcacious
in doing the work Of reform for
which it was designed
Now. this be law; any one falling
under the three classes named, and
who has been heretofore sconvicted-I
no matter whether before or after this
act took effect-may upon. "a second
conviction be punished by ,confne-
ment in the penitentiary ore year.
This viii affect a host of people in
the State who have heretofore been
convicted for selling Spirituous liquors
without a State license The next
conviction, for an offense committed I
since November 9, may be felony.
am somewhat perplexed Eto. know
whether or not the Legislature in I
tended to repeal section p of chapter
49, OF the Code. This section also
provides an additional penalty for
sales of spirituous- liquors, &c, by, re
taildealers upon a second conviction.
but under this section the second Of
Tense is misdemeanor, the addi-
tiona punishment being confinement
in jail. This section is still in force
unless repealed by implication. But
IN order TO avoid any confusion, it
will be safer if any indictments are
found for second violations, to find
For feIonies:
o section 10 of this chapter, as
amended. This section provides the
for illegal sales, &C., where
he seller holds license. The hold
er Of such license is prohibited from
selling or giving away certain liquors {
lnder the circumstances, and to the
persons therein named. The penalty
or a violation of this section is not |
ess than $40 nor more than 500 for ,
he first offenSe, and not. less than I
$40 nor more than 5000 for the sec !
md offense, and in the discretion of l
he Court the offender may be con I
ined in jail for sixty days, and upon |
the second time the Court
nay revoke the license, and no Ii
:ense shall thereafter be granted to I
UGH person. But I take it, that be-
ore the additional penalties can be $
imposed by the Court, either by way 7
f additional fine, imprisonment or
evocation of the license. the indict-
nent must charge the former con
lotion !
Section 5 contains practically the Q
anne provisions for unlawful sales by a
ruggists. In such case the fine for
he first offense is not less than $50 {
or more than $500, and for second
onyction fine OF not less than 800
or more than $500, and at the dis a
reton of the Court confinement in
all not less than thirty nor more
aan ninety days, and revocation of
is license; and no such license
ball therea fter be granted the drug Il