Evening journal., 1914-06-11

the question OF forfeiture OF
license" aud the duty OF the Court
thereto He says
Under the Act OF 1878, the Legs-
lature made no provision IN relation
to the forfeiture OF a license. In the
Act Of 1881 in Section IL, however.
the Legislature provided after the
increasing the fine and
adding penalty of imprisonment,
that II hcensee, shall also forfeit
his license, that is upon conviction
of any violation OF the provisions 3f
the Act OF 1881, or upon conviction Of
any violation OF any other Act regu-
lating the selling Of Intoxicating
liquors.
rs 1t a part OF the duty OF the
Court under the provisions of Sec
tion II of tho Act Of 1881, to declare
the license forfeited Ia case Of con-
yiotion: or make an order in relas
ton thereto; or add forfeiture
clause 10 the sentence?
The peculiar expression as TO the
forfeiture of the license must be
taken in connection with the other
provisions o. the statute. Ii Il a
general rule that the statute must be
considered as whole. We find IN
Section OF the Act oil 1881 that the
Legislature has provided that when q
owner, tenant or occupant was con-
vlcted and sentenced for a violation
Of any Of the provisions OF the law
for the sale OF intoxicating liquors,
that such conviction and sentence
should operate to make the prosecu-
tion Of the business at such inn or
tavern afterwards unlawful and a
nuisance; and the Legislature also
provided that the Court should add to
It's judgment an order that the bust
ness at such inn or tavern should
be suppressed and also directed that
the Sheriff should seize the building
aud hold Il, so as to prevent further
sale in such building, inn or tavern.
Considering these provisions In
connection with the provisions In
Section IL, that the licensee, apon
conviction shall also forfeit his
license, one Is forced TO the con
clusion that the matter OF the for
feiture was intended by the Legis-
lature to be self-executory. for tho
reason that If 1t would be unlawful
after conviction of lieensee, for him
to prosecute the business, and a
nuisance, OF what value Is his license
Even II the license was not OK
pressly declared to be forfeited, how
could a licensee sell under such
license, when the Legislature ex-
pressly declared that the prosecution
of his business after conviction was
unlawful and a nuisance.
"The Legislature provided that the
business should be suppressed by the
Sheriff. What difference does II
make, so far as tho license Is con-
cerned, whether or not 1t Is forfeited,
or whether or not the Court incor-
pOrates II in the sentence, or makes
an order to that effect? The Legls-
lature has so declared and has made
1t expressly q further penalty on the
licensee, and directed the Court "a
make an order for the suppression
OF the business. Therefore, the
Legislature, after providing that upon
conviction Of a licensee, the business
conducted by the licensee could not
he continued. It was made an unlaw
ful act and nuisance, and the Courl
was directed to suppress the bust
ness, and the Sherlff was ordered 4
seize and hold the building in hi
custody. In order. therefore, I
carry out completely the design am
intent OF the Legislature that tn
license should be stripped of al
semblance Of a privilege to continu,
the business after conviction, and t
make assurance doubly sure, the,
provided that upon conviction OF Z
violation Of the Law, that the license
should be forfeited Anything thai
the Court might do can neither ado
to, alter or take from, the plain
meaning and intent Of the expires.
sion. If the Court should omit to In.
clude or add to the sentence, or Il
make an order that the license was
forfeited, II could not have the effect
Of making imperative the plainly ex-
pressed meaning Of the Legislature
that the license should be forfeited
the Court is not given any discretion
in the matter If IL should add u
any sentence, II might see fit to make
1t could give no more force TO the
question OF tho forfeiture of the Ii.
cense, than the Legislature itself has
given by the use of the Language
which the Legislature saw fit TO EN-.
Dloy In addition to which, the
Legislature has seen fit to expressly
state, what the Court were TO order
that is, they should order the bust.
ness suppressed In case Of conviction
II they had intended the Court K
make an order or forfeiture, they
ChnfNlH nndntthinrIxr
would neem clear, therefore, from
this analysis that the forfeiture OF !
license takes place upon the conyic
tion Of 6 licensee for a violation o.
the law Nothing is either needed
or required at the hands of the Court
by way of an order; nor Is the Cour
given any power or discretion In th,
matter The Legislature says tha
II the person convicted Is a licensee
he shall forfeit his license; So tina
the forfeiture becomes an accom-
Dlished tact upon the conviction o
the licensee.
THE statutes Of other States, fo
the most part, have provided tha
certain proceedings shall be institut
ed to revoke licenses, where the Ii
censee Is charged with the offense
which makes a license revocable, an,
a trial Is had under the proceeding
provided in the statutes. In only
few Of the States is there a statutor,
provision that upon conviction of al
ofense the license is revoked or an
nulled or forfeited. In those State
which have statutes reading simila
to our statute. the Courts have hell
that the words themselves act as
revocation, annulment or forfeitur
of the license"
Quoting the case Of Myers, 95 Ney
York, Judge Churchman remarked.
ut is to be observed that thi