The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-07-07
NEW PROHIBITION QUESTION
FOR THE COUHTS.

new phase in Greensboro. A criminal
case has been instituted which will test
the constitutionality of the amendment
to the charter Of hat city passed. by
the last legislature, which provides that
when a man in that city is found 10
have a certain amount Of liquor on his
premises that fact is prima facie evil
Idence Of his guilt in an indictment
charging him with selling liquor ille-
Igally land places on him the burden Of
proving his innocence. This case viii
also bring before the courts the ques-
Ition of guilt under the prohibition avs
Iof a man who keeps what is called a
I"corkage" establishment; that 3. a
Iplace where a person can take his own
liquor and have it served up to him by
the proprietor on payment OF a small
sum for the service.
A man in that city named West has
been bound over to court in twenty
leases Of this kind. West, it seems,
rendered his money to the city author
Titles for his license to conduct a cork
lage'' establishment and was refused.
He then opened his place Of business.
Twenty warrants were issued against
him by the mayor. One case was -ried
and he was bound over to court. He
then waived examination in the Others
and gave bond in the twenty cases IL
THE sum fifty dollars each for his ap-
lpearance at court. The Greensboro
correspondent OF the Raleigh News and
lObserver gives this account Of the pro
lceedings in the one case put to trial:
The evidence in only one cas-. WAS
Heard. City Attorney Scales introduced
witnesses who wore that one of them
IcarIied a bottle of liquor to West and
loot him to mix drinks for two. They
itcok the drinks. Laid West for his
leiasses and mixing. and walked out
with the balance of the whisiSey. but
did not buy the whisky from West or
riace it in his possession. West did
|not introduce any evidence.
City Attorney Scales insisted that
under the law of the last legislature,
West was guilty of retailing because
he was made Drima facie guilty Of re-
ltailing by handing the liquor to the
WITNESS. and he had not rebuttel the
presumption Of guilt by proving that
he was not guilty. Attorney j. A.
Ba1r;nger. for West contended that
Ieven if a law which DESTROYED the
fundamental RICH: CT a citizen 10 have
iguilt established beyond a reasonable
ldOubt before he was ~adiuiged L GRIM
linal or tcifre he vas called on TO cs-
| Z 81 l,1ich hic inn oonn.a ur0c oOnSfitu,tin M
ial. the testimony CT the states wit
nesscs themselves rebutted the pre-
ST MI ton Of a sale which the law
Icreated. for they sWOre that the Whis-
key was theirs and West only mixed
two drinks for them.
The two questions raised in this case
will not be settled until the supreme
Icourt passes upon them.
Whichever way that court decides will
lbe the law of the state, and we hope the
side which loses, whichever it may be,
ed upon the law by our highest Judicial!
Tribunal and hat there will be no urg-
ing and demanding by adherents of the
side defeated hat inferior courts
SHOULD in future cases of the kind ig-
more the decision Of the supreme court
and decide the question according to
the ideas of the persons or papers diff
lfering in opinion with the majority Of
the members of the supreme court, as
WAS advocated not long ago by the
|editor of one of our daily papers regard
ing an important civil suit. We want
Ito see this prohibition question decid-
led finally and the eternal agitation
lover it settled Dey ond controversy.