The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-15
ENLARGE JUG LAW.
ConstitutionaIity of Meek
Ienburg Statute.
Question Presented Whether One Who
Buys as an Accommodation for
Friend Can by Legislation be
Made Agent OF Seller Of In
tOXicantS.
t0xicants.

| Having only last week disposed
| cleverly of the case of State VS.. Nc
| Intyre, from Cumberland, in favor Of
| the defendant without directly affect
| ing the stringent laws of that county
regarding the sale and possession OF
| Intoxicating liquors, the Supreme
Court will this week be called upon
to decide a very interesting case aris-
ing or the construction of the Anti
jug Law as reinforced by the special
laws governing the sale of intoxicat-
ing liquors within Mecklenburg coun-
ty.
The case, which is that Of State Us.
Monroe Johnson, arises on peculiar
facts. 1t seems that the defendant
met one Brown. the prosecuting wit
ness, and asked him whether he wish
ed him TO get him some WhiSkey In
Salisbury. The prosecuting witness.
Tom Brown, replied that he did ana
gave the defendant one dollar. The
defendant went to Salisbury, purch-
ased the Whiskey and delivered 1t To
the prosecuting witness the next
morning. On the finding of special
verdict il is declared that the witness
Brown paid no part of the defend
ants expenses to Salisbury and return
and paid nothing for the service rem
dered but that the purchase of the
whskey was in the nature of an ac-
comodation to the prosecuting witness
by the defendant.
The question involved on the YER
dict is whether or not, in accepting
the commission to buy Whiskey and
delivering it in Charlotte, the defend
ant was not made thereby the agent of
the seller under the provisions of
the anti-jug, and Mecklenburg liquor
acts although, as matter of
fact, he was himself the pur
chaser with the money OF the 2ros-
ecutlng witness in town where the
sale of whiskey is lawful.
The anti-jug law, Section 1. of
Chapter 440 of the laws of 1905. in
effect makes the place of delivery of
whlskey the place of sale as between
vendor and vendee and makes the sta
ton or other place to which liquors
may be carried by common carriers
or other persons or corporations for
purposes of delivery likewise the place
of sale.
Under the anti-jug law, therefore,
there would be no way to hold the de-
PENDANT in this case, because the sale
was made at Salisbury and the delivery
to the purchaser also made at that
place.
But the Mecklenburg act. chapter
49S. section g. of the laws of 1905
is as follows:
THAT any person who shall UNI
lawfully and illegally procure and
deliver any spirituouS or malt hq-
uots to another shall be deemed and
held in law 10 be the agent of the
person or persons selling said spiritu-
Gus and matt liquors. and shall be
guilty Of misdemeanor and shall be
punished in the discretion of the
Court"
That section aims to go a bow
shot beyond the anti-Jug law, so as
to render it in fact impossible for one
TO become the agent of a purchaser
of Intoxicating liquors when such
persons lives in territory in which the
sale of the same is prohibited, without
also becoming the agent of the seller
and therefore guilty of a misdemea-
nor.
In the contention of the State in
this case it is held that while the
general principle is that the agent of
the purchaser is not liable as the sell
er or the agent of the seller of liquors,
and that the facts in the especial
case render the defendant the agent
of the purchaser at the same time,
under the law, the legislation fitted
to the especial case renders him the
agent of the seller so as to be indie
table.
When the case was heard at Char
lotte. Judge Cook was Of the opinion
on the special verdict. that the de-
PENDANT was not guilty and the APP
peal in the Supreme court is on, the.
part of the State.
In the Mcintyre case from Cumber-
land. Judge Hoke in discussing that
case, while admitting the principle of
wide police powers on the part of the
legislature SO far as concerns the sale
of whiskey. threw doubt upon the
power of the legislature to declare
possession of any given amount OF
Whiskey an indictable offense within
itself In view of that dictum, it
seems that the right of the legisla-
ture TO declare an act of an accomoda-
ton for one man an act of agency
for another is also matter of grave
doubt even in the exercise of the wide
and pliable doctrine of police pow
erS.