The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1905-01-04
PACIFIC CLUB
HELD GUILTY
JUDGE WHITNEY GIVES DECISION
IN TEST LIQUOR CASE AGAINST
WELL KNOWN ORGANIZATIONS

Judge w. /. Whitney IN the District |
Court this morning decided the Pacific
Club case where the President, A. s.
Cleghorn, was charged with selling
liquor without a license. The defend
ant was found guilty. The case was
simply a test proceeding and notice Of
appeal to the Supreme Court was at
once given. No fine was named.
The decision IN part Is as follows:
THE contention OF the defendant is
that a bona fide club, organized for
legitimate purposes, can dispense
liquors to its members without procur-
ing any license under the laws relating
to the sale Of liquors, as expressed IN
Chapter Al Of the Penal Laws Of 1897.
referring to defendants first con-
tention, it Is sufficient for this court ~
say that the only time that II appears
that this matter was brought to the
attention Of the Attorney Generals
Department, Mr.. u. p. Dole, the then
Attorney General, used the following
language: Without expressing an OPP
1nion that this Is legal or Illegal /
think you are justified IN warning the
Elks that the Attorney Generals De-
partment must take the position that
sales for profit and not at cost and as
mere incident Of the festivities Of the
/ Lodge cannot be recognized rs lawful
/ AS to the cases, q lengthy citation
1 thereof by this Court would be as USE
less as IT would be inappropriate. Most
/ Of those cited by defendant ~ SUSTAIN
( ing his contention are founded on the
early case Of Graf v. Evans, 8 Exch. y
Law Reg. 3D. This case, though care
fully considered and exceedingly val
liable, would not, we believe, from n
careful reading, have been decided az
it was under our statute, which II much
broader and more inclusive than the
English License Act Of that date That
case was one OF an unincorpOrated club.
The case, too, has been under consider
alton IN many Of the highest state tribu-
mails and been there expressly and en-
phatically criticized, many courts re-
fuslng 10 follow II, holding the reason
ing deficient and the case too restricted
TO apply generally.
But certain eliminating rules must
We at the foundation Of all decisions.
We believe that the rule Of the case at
bar dictated by reason and establish
ed by authorities Is this: That, list;
Where the liquor Is owned by an indi-
yidual, or a partnership, by the person
or persons natural or corporate and
"2nd: Where the rquor Is sold to am
other, be he member OF q club or a
plain citizen, that there II a sale OF the
liquor as contemplated by all the stat
utes regulating the sale Of liquors
Z When this sale Is made without a H.
cense, then the statute has been VlO-
lated.
such being the Courts opinion Of the
! law but two points remain 10 this
, Court for decision, namely: % 10
, whom did the liquor belong, and o.
Was there a salC2
AS 10 the first Of these, the llquOi
was either the property Of the cOrpOr.
. alton or It was the joint property Of al
the members Of the association. IN tn.
, matter Of ownership, there can be- 10
difference between the Pacific Club ant
any other corporation. The Btockhold.
ers own 10 part OF the property Of the
club by reason Of their shares Of stOcl
therein, II Incorporation means any.
thing At all u means this, that thereby
an entity IL formed against which thr
shareholders hold but chooses IN action
claims represented by their ccrtihcatei
Of stock But We're II held that tn
I shareholders had an interest IN IN,
= goods held by the club, even then, ar
laid down IN State V. Boston club, Al
. La. An. 1885, The inhDitesimai Interest
Of member Of large contemporaries
r association IN the drink he orders doei
. not make him tenant IN common witt
[ blg pO-mgmbgrgr and the dellvarU fop &
r consideration not q sale
4 1.-THE Court therefore holds that IN,
, property IN the liquor dispensed IL no
\ part Of the common property Of tn,
e member 10 whom such liquor Is dis
pensed.
- "Stlll less doubt has this Court tina
% the transaction was a sale. No cleare
e expression Of our Views can BE- fOun,
than In the case Of Michigan v. Soule,
j. Il, A. 49, The Court there says
N appears 10 be a simple and unan
swerable proposition that the ilquo
was IN the first place owned by the cor
poratlon ms corporate property, III
same ~ any person might own II. tina
when II was delivered 10 member o
, the corporation for the money paid tn
. | corporation, or It's agent, and going IN
, 10 us funds, Il was q sale b. that mem
Der the same as II II had passed 10
stranger to the corporation I'm the sam
, way; and the liquor by such sale thel
became the absolute property Of M
/, member, the same az n he had pur
- chased II In a saloon, or at any othe
place where II Is sold.