Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1909-10-26
SUPREME
COURT HAS
OPINIONS
Decides Two Cases in TiIIa-
County, and Both on the
Present Local Option
Question.

In two opinions handed down by
the supreme court this morning the
validity OF the local option law in
Tlllamook City is upheld, and two ap-
pellants will be compelled TO answer
10 a charge in which they violated
the law.
In the case OF State VS.. Howard
Edmunson, appealed from the cir
cult court OF Tlllamook county.
Judge VIM. Galloway holding the
court the supreme court afiirms the
judgment OF the lower court, and
the appellant must now comply with
tho sentence. The opinion was writ
en- by Justice King It was main
tanned in an oral argument that the
indictment was not sufficient to estab
fish an offense under the local OPP
tion law. in respect 10 which Il was
insisted that &c was incumbent up
on the state to negative such excep-
tions as may be gathered from an
act, and the act cannot be construed
to prohibit the sale OF pure alcohol
for scientific and manufacturing
purposes or wines 10 church OIL
eials for sacramental purposes, or
alcoholic stimulants as medicine IN !
actual cases OF sickness. which may
be sold on written prescription OF
a regularly practicing physician.
The supreme court holds that |
wnon exception must be negative IN
an Information or Indictment. has
long been disputed question I'm this
state. the determination OF which |
depends upon the provisions OF the
act governing each particular case.
Justice King refers 10 the case OF
State w. Carmody as being de-
eisivo OF the point under consldera-
tion. There II was contended that
tho Indictment was insufficient on
the grounds that II did not aver that
the liquor which the defendant was
charged with selling was sold for a
beverage purpose Justice Bean
held In this case that 1T was a set
tied rule In this state that In In
dlctments for misdemeanors created
by statute, Il Is sufficient to charge
the onense In the words of the
statute subject to the qualification
that the crime must be set forth
with such certainty that it viii APP
prise the accused OF the oficnse im-
puted TO him. and further that cx-
ceptlon and proyIsos IN the criminal
statute need not be negative IN the
Indictment unless they be descriptive
of the offensc or necessary iugredi-
ent In i,s definition"
Another point argued by the de
fondants counsel was relating 60
the suniciency OF the order of the
county clerk declaring the result of
the election ON prohibition. an that
Il was disclosed during @ general
torn of the court, and not during @
special session as required by law.
for the specific purpose of deter
mining the result
The supreme court holds that the
order of the court declaring the
election, is valid and that iuas
much as the election was declared
during a general term OF court. d is
not necessary that GO bee declared az
a special term. In support of this
opinion Justice King states that the
term special session is adhered 10 |
Ia the statute for the sole purpose
OF calling the commissioners and |
county Judge together, as required |
by law In such instances, hut II the
commissioners are IN session with |
the county Judge. II Is sufficient to
declare the election,
rhe second case of State vs. Lang
worthy, appealed from similar
judgment and from the same coun-