Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-02-02
IN THE LAW COURT.
Important Liquor Case Of cerbin ver-
sus Houlehan.

sus Houlehan.
The case Of H. F. Corbin & Company
Of Cincinnati, Ohio, VS.. Peter A.
Houlehan of Gardiner to recover pay
ment for liquors alleged to have been
sold the defendant by the plaintiff,
still remains in the law court for dis
position.
This case which came before the
superior court for Kennebec county IN
1901, was fought out by Arson NJ.
Goddard, ESQ, of Augusta, counsel Tor
the plaintiff, and Fred Emery Beane,
ESQ, of Hallowell, counsel for the
defendant.
The case involves an action OF as
sumpsit on account to recover the
amount of s256.s5 due for intoxicating
liquor sold March 10. 1886. by the plain
tiffs, then and still residents OF Cincin-
natl, O., to the defendant.
This sale consisted Of 90 cases of bot
tied whiskey and five barrels of
whiskcy in bulk. the contract price of
the goods being $606.S5, including co
cents for carriage. On this the defen-
dant has paid $3.50, leaving a balance
which the plaintiffs seek to recover
with interest to the amount Of 1872 to
October 10, 1901, amounting to $2o6.So
This bill Of goods was sold to the
defendant by the plaintiffs drummer,
F. L. Lane, Feb. q, 1896.
The case went from the superior
court to the supreme court of Maine,
and the briefs were to be filed in writ
ing. These briefs have been submitted,
and Mr.. Goddard, Esq, has now TO
reply to the brief of the defendant be-
fore the case comes to the final con-
sideration of the justices of the
supreme court Of Maine.
At the trial before the superior court,
the defendant testified that he pur-
chased the liquor for illegal sale con-
trary to Chap. q of the Revised
Statutes, and the presiding justice
thereupon instructed the jury in the
court to return a verdict for the de-
PENDANT.
In opposing this action, Mr.. Goddard
says
II submit that this decision is in
conflict with the commercial clause OF
the United States laws and the four
teenth amendment of the constitution
OF the United States"
In addition thereto, Mr.. Goddard says
that he realizes that he asks the court
to reverse a long line of decisions, but
he does this In all sincerity, hoping
that. in view of the change in legal
authority in the prohibition states not
only the transportation but the barter
and sale is to be jealously guarded by
the federal authorities.
He says that there is clear line OF
demarkation where the federa
authority ceases and the State
authority begins; that there Is ne
middle ground of concurrence or con-
Fiction between the federal and the
State authorities.
In opposition to this, Mr.. Beane
opposes the various decisions of the
Maine court in similar cases. and says
I'VE are able, at this time to furnish
n later decision of the supreme court o.
the United States which We think bear:
on the matter in question. in the cas'
of the Pennsylvania railroad VS.
Hughes ct ais. involving thu
responsibility on the part of the rail
road for the loss of Il valuable race
horse killed while in transit from
Albany. New York, to Philadelphia
The bill of lading i'll New York limited
the damages to be paid by the colnpan!
to 800 in case of accident. but thu
PENNSYLVANIA court held that the con
tract made in New York was not bind
ing in Pennsylvania. and awarded full
damages in the sum of 10000.
Justice Day IN discussing the actor
in the United states supreme court
held that the Pennsylvania courts were
right in their decision and that unit
Congress takes action to cover the
point. each state must determine It's
own line of policy in such cases
"Thc best-read. wisest and most pro-
found lawyers of our state have con-
stantly used their most exhaustive ar
grments and most logical reasoning il
an endeavor to overthrow this simple
six-line section of the statute; but from
the time of it's enactment it has stood
the test
After Mr.. Goddard has answered the
brief of the defendant, the case will be
finally settled by the law court.
The decision of the supreme court in
this case will be awaited with a great
deal of interest inasmuch as defendant
in the case has invoked "A recent de-
cision OF the supreme court of the
United States which seems to reinforce
the doctrine of states rights.