Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1906-07-17
The Liquors Ordered Returned.
POINT DECIDED BY LAW COURT IN
OXFORD CASE.

A decision has been handed down b.
the law court in the case of State vs.. In
toxicating Liquors and Lawrence Penn
broke, claimant, which was reported Il
the court on an agreed statement O
facts. The liquors were shipped
lC. o. D., addressed to Pembroke at .
Byron Street, Rumford Falls, and wer'
seized when deposited at the express
Office In Rumford Falls before being de
livered at the address given. It was thu
custom of tho express company to de
liver express within the limits Of th'
village, and this package would have
been delivered later In the day. It wa
admitted that the liquors were intended
for illegal sale. The question at Issue
was whether the package was protected
against seizure under the Interstate
commerce clause of the constitution
until it's delivery at the street and mum
Der specified in the address. The de
cision is that it was, in the following re
script.
Rescript, by Whitehouse, 1.-THE con
signors entered into contract with the
Express Company for the transportation
of box of Intoxicating liquors from
Covington, KY, to No. 4 Byron street
Rumford Falls, Maine. It was c. O.
/ D. shipment and 1t was the unquestioned
duty of the express company either to
make personal delivery of the package
to Lawrence Pembroke, the consignee,
or to leave it at his residence or place Of
business designated as No. Byron
Street. The liquors were intended for
unlawful sale in this state. In Am. Elk.
Co. vs.. Iowa, 1875, U. S., 1873, the ques.
ton of a shipment by express G. 0. d.
was necessarily involved and directly de-
termined. In that case the plaintiff re-
ceived four packages OF Intoxicating
liquor at Rock Island, Illinois, to be car
ried to Tama, Iowa, and there delivered
to four different persons, one of the
packages being consigned to each.
Upon the arrival of the packages at lama
they were seized in the hands of the ex-
press agent by virtue of an information
charging that they contained intoxicat-
ing liquors intended for unlawful sale.
Without passing upon the question
whether the property in c. o. D. ship
ment is at the risk of the buyer or seller,
and without deciding when the sale is
completed the Federal Court held that
the packages in question received by an
express company in Illinois to be car
ried to the State of Iowa and there de-
livered to the cOnsignees G. 0. d. for the
price of the packages and the expressage
were interstate commerce under the pro-
lection of the commerce clause Of the
Federal constitution and that prior to
their actual delivery to the consignees
they could not be confiscated under the
prohibitory laws of Iowa.
The transportation of the liquor from
the office of the express company at
Rumford Falls to No. Byron Street was
a part of the continuous interstate ship
ment from Kentucky to the street and
number designated at Rumford Falls
and the package was protected from the
operation of the laws of Maine until the
act of transportation was consummated
by the delivery of the package at Its
place of ultimate destination in this
state. The seizure was made before
the transportation was terminated and
was an interruption of an interstate
shipment. 1t was therefore premature
and unauthorized.
While therefore intoxicating liquor
continues to be recognized by Federal
authority as legitimate subject Of
interstate commerce section 81 of chapter
81 of the revised statutes of 1888 as
amended in section 80 of chapter 20 of
the revised statutes of 1908, 80 far as it
10 ;~ka BOT
portation, must be deemed incompatible
with the interstate commerce clause OF
the Federal constitution.
The entry must therefore be
Judgment for the claimant.
Order for a return of the liquors to
issue.
&c. Park, county attorney, for state;
Bisbee & Parker for claimant.