Evening journal., 1914-06-11
Judge Chmchman Finds Six Liquor Dealers Guilty With Forfeiture cens

idcLs ABOUT tbc location OF the two
bars conducted by the three accused
men. They were anxious TO have the
point decided by the court and assisted
in removing all obstacles, so that the
law points could be argued. Judge
Churchman has held many hearings in
the cases on March 49, when tho cases
were opened, and on other dates, and
suggested points he would like to have
argued in the Mullin case, which was
made the principal action.
Judge Churchman'S decision in the
Mullin case will go down as one of the
most far-reaching md comprehensive in
terpretations OF the laws regulating the
liquor business ever made in Delaware
The decision in the Mullin case alone
comprised sixty-seyen long tvpewritten
pages, the result of several weeks re-
search and preparation by Judge
ghurchman The Casey decision cover
I'd three long typewriter pages, and
the other cases were disposed of in
eight typewriter pages, each referring
to the rulings in the Mullin and Casey
cases, first disposed Of.
Judge Churchman quotes tue
agreed statement of facts submitted
10 him by counsel as 10 the location,
etc, of the two bars in the Hotel
Mullin, and he also sets forth fully
all the laws regulating the sale OF
Intoxicating liquor passed by the
Legislature from 1873 to date. He
then takes up the first legal point
raised and argued in the case, that
of "Sudiciency OF the Description cf
The Place" After referring to the
law of 1873, Judge Churchman con-
tinues:
Immediately following in Section
10 of the same act, the Legislature
provided that any person Of full age
and good moral character desiring to
secure license, he may be licensed
10 do CO., When the following re-
quirements have been strictly com
piled with and the very first condi-
tion stated in Section 10 under the
hrst paragraph is that the applicant
shall apply in writing, that he desires
to keep an inn or tavern at some
place TO be particularly designated,
in the school district, or ward, If in
the city of Wilmington"
Judge Churchman quotes the laws
of 1881 and 1888 and adds:
"The defendant in this case in
compliance with the foregoing provl-
sion particularly designated the place
and described the house where he de
sired TO sell in the following manner:
No. 612 Market street.
SO the question arises whether Or
not the particular designation Of the
defendant is strict compliance with
the law, and also whether or not
the house can be said to be described
In the manner stated. These are the
hrst two questions to be considered.
I'm considering these questions In
connection with authorities in other
States which pass upon the suiflci-
ency of the prerequisites to the OBJ
tanning of a liquor license it is im+
portant to point out that in no other
statute which | have bhen able TO
find is there any provision for a strict
compliance with the conditions pre-
cedent to the obtaining of a liquor
license, SO that it Is necessary TO al
ways have in mind this very impor-
tant legislative provision.
The Legislature has provided Wy
the use of those words, that the con
ditions shall be strictly complied
with, rule Of construction not pos
sible in States where that statutory
provision is absent
This rule of construction at once
also distinguishes the case at bar un-
der the Delaware statutes from all OF
the other cases. Counsel for the de-
fendant contends that the designation
Of the place by street and number
only OF az the corner of certain
named intersecting streets is a sufIi-
cient compliance with the statute,
and contends that the phraseology
place particularly de-
signated' and house described in the
petition is sufficiently met by indi-
eating the place or the house by
street and number only, or by being
located at a certain corner OF GER
tain named intersecting streets, on
the ground that it is a substantial
and sufficient compliance with the
language Of the statute.
Counsel for the defendant further
states the object of the statute as be-
ing first, to inform the public Of the
exact location for which the license
is applied for, and secondly, SO as TO
fix the place, so that ii might not be
ambulatory or uncertain but re-
stricted to a certain place
Counsel cites Joyce on Intoxica-
ting Liquors, page 22S.
In many states under the
statutes in force, the application
should contain a description OF the
premises or the exact location OF
the same.
Counsel seems to lose sight OF the
fact that the construction provided
by the Legislature as stated above Is
not that there be a substantial and
sufficient compliance with the con.
ditions set out in the statute but that
there shall be a strict compliance
SO that it is not possible to argue The
question in any other way, such as
whether or not there has been sub.
stantiai compliance or whether or moi
there has not been a substantial com
pliance. The question is, has there
been strict compliance?"
Judge Churchman then analysed sis
cases cited by Mullins Counsel, from
decisions in Iowa, New Jersey. Mas
sachusetts, Rhode Island, Texas ant
also in the Lofland case in Delawar,
&c Pennewill, 263), and shows how
they differ from the Mullin case anc
the DelaHa are law requirements
Judge Chufchman proceeds;
"The Legislature would have omit
ted the word particularly in Til,
statute, if 1t had intended to provide
for very general designation Of tn,
place where the business was pro
posed to be carried on. And had I
omitted that one word, there is NJ
doubt hut what the street and nun
MnC MsVrHAIrU Tnn III