Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-12-17
* NON COUNTY.

State OF M,r.uc VS.. LIyssts l.. Wallace.
script, ltuDOuA, >.
MS Was Il cUn.pit@.llJ for taking CLAIMS
wItLIE inc InhtS 81 Juc t,ay.li OF u-:.n-;
s'.ilaIy 10 the regulation oi I'll. udnicI-
ItI ONIC'lS dSSuu..iIg 80 act unu.r l'IuI.t
LAWS I.r.'. cltptcI ~. me Cda,. cvn, :,
IcIolc ne law court On an uaItrd state
I."nt UI facts. / No aCt of III, lcS.sIeL-
care Is as !olIoU>.-
''lI".S at tn,.r annual meetings NAV
i.N the times III NuIcn cams MAY lie
taken within th.ir limits, ana thc prices
iur WhIcu ats muu.clpaI Officers shall
Siaut licenses OF pt.rn..tS li,..,,llr ana
,ac uImhtr To toe 2rLnttu: and when no,
80 regulated ~ vote Inc municipal OH
t'rH may Tx IL" times ana PAGES Tor
winch PERMITS shall Le granted aud the
Huirt"r 10 bt grantee. No pri SON shall
idhr claims WITHIN til,. limits of any towns
having 80 r"s ulatcd tHc TAXING uI cllrl5
without lirSt nbt;Lnins a WrItt,n l.crnS,.
ar Hermit from the municipal ullIr.r5 of
Such town, unitSS III" claims are tor tn.
consumption of himself ami FANNY or
i"r the consumption OF lis" OF Inhabitants;
OF inc Town or any li"rSOn temporarily
Il Sidcl.t therein. Whoever take. cl nm,
contrary to the provisions OF this see
t!on, snail for each offence, be fined not
NOR than Slt. or lmprIsonrncnt not NOR,
than thirty days"
This act was approved on the 18th day
o: March 1908 ANA took effect on n approval
TIE annual town met.lig was held
March Is. 1905. On April II. 1905, the mu-
HCIpal officers OF Cushing voted 10 isSII,.
rot TO exceed 80 licenses to residents Of
me town OF Gushing and also voted not
10 issue licenses to non residents Of thn
town. The defendant was a Resident 90
the town of Friendship. The ..p!npla nj
alleged that the defendant took claims
Wlthln the limits Of the town Of Gushing
on the 18th day of OctOi zen ann il
was further alleged ana admitted thar
the CLAIMS were Eut du. for TIN. rouYt!;lr,-
ton of the i,i,.,id.tr; ana family or Tor
Ia aNas.f
thshin% or any person tenn urltily rel
dent therein.
The two contentious Of tn ,lcfcn Ilrt
arr. First. that tho action tf ~" mu-
riCinal officers could H. IT NJ fore. h"-
cause th".r right 10 Ict q pended wholly
up'n whether the town had taken ~
omitted To take action, ana that the town
could not take action under q STATUTE,
which was not enacted until after thu
date Of tn" meeting. S,ruHd. that tho
Statut" ant regulation of the riuricipll
o:lic' ~ 10y discriminating N favor uf c.ti-
Z"nS of the town dcni,d t. other Cit;Z "a;
81 The state the equal protection Of tie
law
II Is unnecessary to consider tho quos-
tions haiSed by the second defense as a
true construction of the statute indic.it =
that the action Of the municipal officer;
vas without authority. Ii is a recognized
rule that penal statute is to hr con
strucd strictly in favor or the rights ot
respondent. Another reason for 1
strict construction of the present act 4,
that ii relates 10 a delegation Of 4 n1wer
which is primarily vested in tho lesisla-
tur". hat of controlling tho subject of
sea shore fisheries. 1t is clear from the
language Of the oct of 1905 if it stood
alone. tfat tn" m,Inc pal officers had M
authority to act until after an annual
meeting of the town n which no action
had been taken. At the annual meeting
OF the town which was held eleven DAYS
prior to the enactment of this law. action
might have henn taken rndcr the similar
4 of ant,,
| r. s. Chan. Il. Sec. RI. and undf. ,that
| statute if tho town did not act no
! authority WIS oth""Niso de1e~at.I and M
! ""t'"n could +" t1En'r Un'tI the following
! Nt'r- y S.riCt copsf ~ to, Of tba I'm.
! "lI'rn e ~" ""'" a"' - r-rU rs = :. -
| '''rH"" i"'orrr0f"-f"n ~ t',0 word. ~ :
| roy indirnto '""islat;v" intcni Ia dsIn
! gate 10 he municipal officers authority