Evening journal., 1914-05-12

United States revenue act. In his
OPINION he disposed of great many
cases that were cited against the gov
ernment by using the following Ian
guage: When such statute speaks of
a dealer or of a 'dramship Keeper or
of selling by retail. or of the busi-
ness of selling without defining these
terms the task of definition falls upon
the trial court, and there may then be
little difficulty in concluding that a So
cial club docs not deal in liquors. or is
not engaged Ia the business of selling.
within the common meaning Of the
words'"
Mr.. Wolcott declared that in this
case before the court the defendant
being a corporation. it has distinct
entity of its own. 1T is the seller he
said "I.itz is the purchaser. The
thing involved was beer tine pi operty
IN which resided in the defendant: tho
defendant passed title to the beer To-
I.itz upon consideration OF the payment
of Eve cents by the said Litz to the
defendant All the evidence of sale
therefore existed TO wit. property, pur-
chase nrise. seller ana buyer"
Mr. Wolcott then cited a number of
cases showing such state Of facts
as are involved in the present case. He
also quoted various authorities upon
what constitutes thc sale of liquor and
quoted sections from the laws OF Eng
land as applied in similar cases in the
English courts.
Mr.. Wolcott cited from case in the
Colorado courts in 1909. in which the
Order of Elks. which was the club whose
conduct was in question was an unin-
corporated association. He said that in
this case it was contended that in dis
posing of liquors TO its members for a
consideration the club was not elicctinc
sale but mere distribution of liuuol
of the club among It's members. TIL,
court in this case held otherwise using
the following language. "The member
assuming he has an interest in IL. ha'
but minute interest and. when he eX
changes his money for a quantity o
liquor he pays for his minute interest
and the interest of each Of the othe
members. But il is doubtful if he hai
any interest which he may take by thi'
method Of distribution. BY becoming
member Of a society, or club a per
son acquires. not scverablo right 4
any OF its property. but merely a righ
TO its Joint use and enjoyment so lonl
as he continues to be member. whicl
RIGHT ceases upon his withdrawal or eX
pulsion from the society. The right o
membership invests him with no ndi
vidual transmissble interest in the prop
ertv and effects of the association an
neither he nor any number less thai
the whole can dispose of such property
or any supposed proportionate part o
interest therein
Among the many cases and decis
ions by the courts. which were cite
by Mr.. Wo'cott. we're the following:
State VS.. Chesapeake Club an
Easton Club in Maryland; State v'
Tennessee Club, in Tennessee; Stat
VS.. Piedmont Club, in Virginia; Stat
VS.. Colu lbia Club. in South Carolina
State VS.. st. Louis Club, in Missouri
and People VS.. Adelphia Club, in Ne'
York.
After quoting from scores Of sue
cases. Mr.. Wolcott said:
I'VE submit that thus far we hav
established the proposition that
corporation is a person within tn
meaning the act regulating the sal
of intoxicating liquors and that whe
a corporate club disposes of liquors l
a way set forth in the case stated
does sell the same and thereb
comes within the literal language {
said act. one which is directed again'
the sale of liquors.
After citing a number of additions
cases, all having a bearing on th
case before the court, Mr. Wolco
said:
1--WE contend that all those case
which have been referred to hereto
fore, but which we do not recite, holC
ing that sales by clubs to member
are sales within the meaning of loci
option and prohibition laws are ais
in point to sustain our contention tn;
such sales are embraced within II
Delaware license statute. AS we vie