The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-03-02
OPINION BY CLARK
Justice Douglas Dissents, but Files No
Opinion---LoWer Court Reversed in
State v. Patterson From Durham---
No Liquor Can Now be Shippsd into
Any Town Having Prohibition or
Dispensary.

Any Town Having Prohibition or
/ Dispensary.
The anti-iug law now applies to the
whole State. That is, the place of de-
livery is the place of sale in every county
of North Carolina.
For the Supreme Court yesterday sent
down an opinion reversing the lower court
in the case of State VS.. Patterson. from
Durham, in which Judge c. M. Cook,
Durham Superior Court. decided for the
shipper of the liquor into Durham, and
found Patterson not guilty upon the spe-
cial verdict of the jury, who were unable
to determine the question.
Judge George H. Brown at the January
term of Wakes Superior Court, held the
view now taken by the Supreme Court in
case from Wake Forest. He considered
that the act in question applied to the
whole State.
The opinion of the court was written by
Chief Justice Walter Clark Associate
Justice r. NJ. Douglas dissented arguendo
| that is, without fling a written dissenting
opinion. The case was, argued before the
Supreme Court on Thursday, February
| 18th, it having been advanced on the
docket owing to its great Importance and
the fact that two Superior Court judges
had held opposing views. and the people
CT the State really did not know what
the law WAS. Messrs. Manning C
Foushee, of Durham, and Mr.. r. B. Boone
! appeared with Attorney General R. D.
Gilmer for the State, and Judge R. w.
Winston and Mr.. Victor S. Bryant, OF
Durham. appeared for Patterson.
The facts very briefly in the case were
that during the early part of last Janu-
ary after Durham had been carried for
prohibition under an election, according
to the Watts law, Mr.. Frank Guess, of
| that city, ordered from MIR. j. G. Patter-
son, of Roxboro, dealer in liquor, q
gallon of whiskey. The order was sent
by mail. with the price, $500, enclosed.
The liquor was forwarded to Mr.. Guess
by express. Upon this, a true bill was
found against Patterson for selling intoxi-
eating liquor in the city of Durham.
It was regarded as a test case on the
question of whether chapter $40 OF the
public laws of 1903, making the place of
delivery of Intoxicating liquors the place
of SALE applied to the entire State, or
only to the counties of Cleveland. Cabar-
rus, Mitchell and CASTOR. mentioned in
the title of the act and in section 1, of
the act
Sections and of chapter $40, Acts of
| 1903, are as follows:
! Section l. That it shall be unlawful
for any person, firm or corporation to
manufacture or barter or sell any spirit
uous, vinous, malt, fermented or other
intoxicating liquors in the counties OF
Cleveland, Cabarrus, Mitchell and CASTOR.
| Section 2. That the place where de-
livery of any spirituous malt, vinous,
fermented or other intoxicating liquors
is made in the State of North Carolina
shall be construed and held to be the
place of sale thereof, and any station or
other place within said State to which
any person, firm, company or corporation
shall ship or convey any spirituous, malt,
vnous, fermented or other intoxicating
liquors for the purpose of delivery or car
rying the same to purchaser shall be
construed to be the place of sale: Pro
vded this section shall not be construed
to prevent the delivery of any spirituous,
malt. vinous, fermented or other intoxi-
eating liquors to druggists in sufficient
quantities for medical purposes only"
Judge Clark s opinion follows:
"This section is explicit that the place
of actual delivery to the buyer, or to
which it shall be shipped for delivery to
him SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO BE
THE PLACE OF SALE II is contended
that this provision does not have the ef-
feet of the plain purport OF the words
lEged by the Iawmaking power, because:
Il. This section is found in statute
entitled An Act to prohibit the manufac-
ture. sale and importation-of liquors in
/ Cleveland, Cabarrus, Mitchell and CASTOR
counties. Formerly the caption of an
Act was not at all considered to any ex-
tent whatever in constituting it, for rea-
sons given in State VS.. Woolard, 119 N
c. 49, but the modern doctrine is that
when the language of the statute is
ambiguous the courts can resort to the
! title as aid ia giving such act its true
meaning, but that this cannot be done
when the language used is clear and un-
ambiguous. Randall VS.. Railroad, 107,
n c. 74S; S. G. 104 N. G. 40: State vs.
Woolard, 119 n. c. 779; Freight Discrimi-
nation Cases. 95 N. c. 434: Blue VS. Leach.
Al N. c. 131. To like purport in Hadden
VI. Collector. 72 U. S. LOT. Mr. Justice
Continued on Page Sikh