Omaha daily bee., 1909-09-01
DINUZzO BRIEF IN ERROR
Attorneys for Saloon Man File Paper
Pointing Alleged Mistakes.
yrREss ON LICENSEES RIGHT
Emphasis r. Laid ON Fact that Plain
tiff bought from city Privi-
IeRea which Are AbrOgated
~ This Law.

weaver a Grier. attorneys for the plain
tiff In error In the case Of Frank Dinuzzo
against the state Of Nebraska, wherein
suit was brought against Dinuzzo for vio-
lation OF the daylight law, and a conviction
obtained In the district court. have filed
their brief In error in the Nebraska SUI
preme court.
II is bsld-trst. that the bill is unconsti-
tutional because It contravenes section q
article ~. OF the state constitution sec
ond. that no bill shall contain more than
one subject and that the same shall be
clearly expressed in it's title; third, the
amendments to section IL of the bill are
not Rermane to the section amended;
fourth, because the act amends section 8
Of chapter l. contrary 70 constitutional re-
auirements; fifth, because It amends said
section / Of chapter L. contrary to consti-
tutional requirements; sixth, the act Is I'M
constitutional because II denies the
licensee the right to appeal or the right Of
a Jury trial on the forfeiture of his license;
seventh, because II imposes excessive fines
and infiicts cruel and unusual punishments
contrary to both the federal and state con-
stitutions; eighth, said act is unconstitu-
tional ard void because It amends the sec
lions Of the various charters Of the cities
and villages throughout the state upon the
subject Of liquors, contrary to the consti-
tutional requirements hereinbefore noted.
Another Error Pointed Out.
The buief further holds that the court
erred in not sustaining the demurrer to the
complaint in the district court on each and
every ground and in overruling the motion
for a new trial. to which the defendant at
the time duly excepted. 1t Is further held
by the plaintiffs in error that the principle
of local option permeated all the city and
village charters and the Slocumb law It.
self. but by this act the power conferred
has been taken away partially from the
various corporate authorities. Denial is
made that this can be done by the mere
amendment of the excepted sections.
furthermore" says the brief, 1T must
be remembered that $50 licensees In the
city Of Omaha at the beginning of the
year 1899 took out licenses for the sale
OF lIquor. paid t1.oOo for the privilege OF
selling during the entire year and that
when they paid their r.oOe 1t was under
stood by all of them that they would be
permitted to sell during all week days,
except between the hours Of 1 q. m. and
5 a m Of each day. Rs provided by the
ordinances of the city Of Omaha in such
cases made and provided. After they had
paid their money and purchased what they
supposed to be a license or privilege to
sell liquor during the year, the legislature
by this act known as the daylight saloon
bill, took away from them one-half, you
might say, of the privileges which they
had acquired and paid for, without pro-
viding any compensation or remission or
license moneys whatever and all of this
by a legislature which constantly preached
home rule.
Must BE Held as Citizens.
so long as the principle OF llncensing
saloon keepers exists in the state of Me-
braska, just so long should the licensees
be treated as other citizens of the state.
Such legislation would not be tolerated
for one moment In other lines OF business
and should rot be imposed upon the liquor
traffic. Amy business which the state sees
fit to license should be protected during
the period covered by such license by the
common principles Of justice and fair
play"
It is further held that II the legislature
by this amendment Of section IA, can pro-
hibit the sale of liquor between the hours
of s p. m. and 7 a. m, certainly 1t could
prohibit the sale Of liquor between Z a. IN.
and 8 p. m, or between any other hours
of the day, or for the whole day, which
would revolutionize the law upon the
whole subject
The power Of the legislature is conceded
10 control the liquor TRAFFIC ana TO prohibit
It II It so desires. but is is held that It
must be done by constitutional require
ments.
License Revoked Mt Once.
The brief closes with these paragraphs:
Thus. according to this daylight saloon
bill, no matter whether the person con-
victed in the police court appeals from the
conviction or not, his license is revoked
instanter. The board granting the same
has no discretion In the matter, but must
revoke the license forthwith and that too,
even though the licensee be declared by
the district court, not guilty. NotWith-
standing the fact that he is not guilty OF
the charge, and so found to be by the
verdict Of a jury and a court OF last resort,
sim his license is revoked. his business
taken away from him., and his means OF
earning a livelihood for his family utterly
destroyed.
It seems preposterous that an act Of the
legislature which cuts off the lincesee from
the right OF appeal, the right Of jury
trial, the right to be heard In q court or
appeal upon the question of the revocation
of his license, can be sustained upon any
theory known to lew.
I'VE therefore most respectfully submit
hat the Judgment of conviction herein /,
erroneous for the reason that the pretended
law under which the complaint was drawn
is unconstitutional and void