Milford chronicle. [volume] (Milford, Del.) 1878-1974, 1914-06-19
.InDOR CAN Be SHIPPED
ETO kent And SUSSEX

,.irs. Of the Supreme Court of Della
Tuesday handed down a decisio
makes legal the shipment of liquor
~. outside the State into Kent an
ilOa counties provided the liquor j
Il used for lawful purposes
M cunreme Court also held that tn
usbb Kenyon law is not applicable whel
'snments from outside the State int
'5ly' territory are for the personal us'
Tbs Court also decided that the Haze
..t;.sbipping law is constitutional in it
a.obibition of liquor shipments from
s,;1ts in Delaware into Kent and Sus,
:sy counties.
- made in the case of the State vs..
PsDiamin F. Van Wrinkle. The latter
vas agent of the Adams Express Com
ssw. at Smyrna, and was arrested for
sstTbuting liquor shipments by express
f,om Philadelphia. He was convicted
snd an appeal was taken to the Supreme
Tbe Supreme Court, Chancellor Cur
6s and Judges WOolley and Rice sitting,
hesdsy reversed the lower court, and
jseided that a crime punishable under
Le laws of Delaware has not been COM
ritted BY Van Wrinkle, and that the
charge Of the Court to the jury in the
Court of General Sessions, based upon
The contrary view, constituted an error.
The Supreme Court emphasized par
fcularly that it did not pass upon the
eoDstitutiOnality of the Webb-Kenyon
aB, passed by Congress, which is left
a. open question so far as the courts of
Delaware are concerned.
The Interpretation of the application
Of the Webb-Kenyon Federal law in con-
nsction with the Hazel anti-shipment
law is Of far-reaching Importance.
Il means that while dealers in Penn
syvania, Maryland and other States may
ship liquor into Kent and Sussex. eoun- !
ties for lawful use, or consumption, by
those to whom it is shipped, the deal |
ers in New Castle county are prohibited |
from making shipments into Kent or Sus-
sex for any use except for medicinal or /
sacramental purposes.
This discriminates against the New
Castle county liquor dealers. anditmeans
that the money to be paid by Kent and
Sussex residents who have liquor ship
ped to them for personal or household
use, will go to dealers in Philadelphia
and other nearby cities.
That this would be the effect of the
law was asserted by Wilbur Sasse of
Wilmington in a speech opposing the
Hazel bill in the House prior to its pas
age, but his prophecy was not regarded |
enOusly by the temperance advocates,
Though the Rev. Dr. A. w. Light ;
ourne Of Dover, at the same time said
did not favor a discrimination against
lelaware dealers.
The case Of the State of Delaware VS..
enlamin F. Van Wrinkle is a case arts
ig under the statute of the State of )
eIaware, generally known as the Hazel
W. This statue prohibits the shipment A
Hquor INTO prohibition districts in this T
tate, viz: Kent and Sussex counties. +
ON any other district in this State or i,
On any other State of the United a
ales- From this general prohibition f.
glors and druggists are exempted. n
Aer persons are allowed to carry, but
not allowed to receive by shipment,
y prohibition districts, liquor in guam G
les not exceeding one gallon day. n
i appears from the sCatment of Il e Il
4 mat the Hazel law was enacted bv e.
.l9Grlty OF a federal statute known as el
HeDO-henyOn law, which law was d;
cIed by the Congress of the United b,
.es on the first day of March, 1913. j
latter law provides that the ship Ell
" y. or transportation of liquor from p
otate to another State, which LIQUOR
llehded by any person interested
eiu 10 De received, sold or used in
lIol OF the laws OF the latter State,
snJamin F. Van Wrinkle, the defen- II
. was indicted for violating the pro eV
" Of the Hazel law against the ship
OF liquor into prohibition territory. an
a charged as the agent of the Adams 81
~ 81. company in the town of Smyrna, Sc
.o"a oelng situated in a prohibition da
~ 4, oI TINS State, he received a guam tn,
!! iiquor shipped from Philadelphia tia
I'ale OF pennsylvania through New &C
: county to the town of Smyrna,
on1 county, State of Delaware, and ~
Sieu tne same to the consignee I'M 6ll
y. .lifc.9Imstances whereby it was ad- 81
- Una tliaI tne liquor was not intended be
USED oy the consignee for a law VIC
VI VI pose' VIZ for his own personal reL
no consumption. Oh
"a the trial before the Court of ira
, sessions in Kent county, at the Gay
~ Term, 1913, Van Wrinkle was All
Ky sI5iity under binding instructions F
,ieu by the court to the jury, based ing
,. courts opinion of the law as iee-
'usly expressed in the case of the dav
" vs.; Q Grler, tried by the Court of SUI
a., a. sessions for Sussex county at Mia
uue term, 1913. From the i1dg- YoI
:, by the Court of General and
~ Ior Kent county. Van Wrinkle peri
NJ mlIt OF error, which was argued vice
.ne supreme Court at Dover, at the
S S4' term, 1914. and was decided invi
a supreme Court at this June term.
s aa Curtis and Judges Woolley A
0s composing the Supreme Court MOI I
review Of the case. X.
WILL VIII ADDS after its consideration mon non
"ee06-Kenyon law: Var
ma nothing in the law which teac
q means to the states to prevent Us n
nsportation of liquor by a com Inc
.,,s'l, when the liquor is intended OF z
'Wful purpose. /" on