Evening journal., 1914-06-11

In any of these liquor cases.
~ am OF the opinion that the Court
u required 10 add nothing 10 what
the Legislature prescribed should he
q forfeiture Of a license upon the
conviction Of a licensee, thai the
words are seil-OperatiYe and we're so
intended by the Legislatures and
that they execute themselves upon
conviction, whether the forfeiture n
to be considered and deemed 4 pen.
atty or as s0me authorities have II.
one OF the many restrictions and reg.
ulatl0ns which II Is competent for
the Legislature 10 enact. The license
Il forfeited upon conviction whether
the forfeiture Is embraced within the
sentence Of the court or an order 10
that effect or whether there II no
mention made therein by the Court
IN any sentence on otherwise
Taking up the question OF "Suppres-
sion Of Business Judge Chmcnman
said;
Suppression Of Business.
The questions raised under the sew
enth and eighth proposition submitted
ior argument are whether on not, first
this court can make an order iur the
suppression OF the BUSINESS upon con
yictlon OF any violation ot the liquor
laws, and enforce such order as provided
in Section Of the Act oi 1881
II nder the first part Ol Section OF
the Act OF 1881, the Legislature pre-
Horlbcd that the cot, as 4 further
penalty, should add an order to the
Judgment Of the court, that the business
shall be suppressed, and certain other
acts were directed 10 be done By the
sheriff, and the costs and expenses
thereof were TO &c obtained in the man
ner stated IN the latter part OF See
tiun ..
"fhe question is, can the Municipal
Court for the city Of Wilmington make
such an order, and enforce IL in the
manner indicated IN Section Of the
Act Of 1884, before quoted IN this opin-
iong
aIhe Act OF 1881 Was passed prior
to tile creation Of the Municipal Court
Tor the city Of Wilmington, which was
created BY act passed April 49, 1883, so
that the first named net was in exis-
tencc when the Legislature created this
court, and in the aet creating this
court, the Legislature expressly pro-
yided that this court shall have the
power TO punish persons convicted OF
the ofenses OF which Il was given
jurisdiction 'agreeahly 10 the laws OF
this State SO 1t is apparent that the
Legislature intended TO limit the power
Of the court TO punish for crime to per
sons, and this punishment was to be
in accordance with the laws Of the
State.
arhis liquor Act Of 1881 was passed
and in force at the time the Legsla-
ture made the foregoing provisions in
relation TO the power Of this court The
Legislature knew that fact, ana If the
Legislature had intended that this
court should enforce the provisions Of
Section o, II could or should have eX-
pressed its intention in the act Great
ing the court by giving the court the
power to do So
Il have very grave doubt whether or
not the suppression of nuns bust
ness, IN the manner indicated and
! pointed out by Section Of the Act q
1881, can be embraced within the power
! to punish persons agrceably 20 the laws
Of this State which was the powe
, given to this court BY the Legislature
I Particularly so, when coupled with thl
I order and as a consequence immediatel.
4 following thereafter or thereupon IN
4 property is 20 be seized. There is quite
! a distinction between judgments, whicl
! are in persona, that Is against the per
, son and judgements in rem, which en-
braces, OF course judgments against oI
upon a particular matter or thing, and
, the authorities hold that a judgment
in rem as distinguished from judg-
mcnt in persona, Is q judgment upon
some particular thing or subject mat.
ter, and It is only rendered or valid
when pronounced by a tribunal having
authority SO to do.
"The proceedings authorized by tbs
Legislature in Section 0, except that
part which declares that any convic
tion and sentence for any violation OF
the law shall make the prosecution OF
the business at such place unlawful and
nuisance, are what the authorities
call breach and seizure laws, and the
authorities are unanimous in designat.
ing such proceedings as proceedings in
rem, and as only being connected with
criminal liability ON the part of the
person convicted Of any offense
Entertaining such a doubt / am very
/, clear that it Is my duty, not to make
the order for the suppression Of the
business wllich tho Legislature con
tanned in Section . Of the Act Of 1881
,. "The case OF ZuchowslSi vs. The State
/, 3 Penn. 33a, is not decisive OF the
point"
Judge Churchman remarked that il
! was not necessary for him to pass OF
some Inconsistencies in the Delawar,
! laws raised by Mullins counsel, mas
, much as he had already determined that
there Is grave doubt as to the right
, and power Of this court 20 make an or
der for the suppression Of the business
|. IL therefore becomes immaterial TO th'
decision Of this ease, how Sections
,, and Q OF the Act Of 1881 are 70 be con
strued.
! Unity and Duality Of Place.
The remaining question to be de
cded in this case Is whether or not un
. der the agreed state Of facts, the ac
Z cused by selling on Market street ant
also on Shipley street, IS violating th'
! first provision contained in Section
: Of the Act Of 1878, reading. Each II
cense granted under the provisions o.
: this act shall be TO but one person OF
4 firm to sell at one place only
"This question must be decided upor
the language used in the statute anl
( by the adjudicuted cases in other juris
> dictions. The question, briefly stated
r is this; Did the defendant by desig
d mating his place Of business as No
a 5l3 Market street. limit his place Of
g business to that particular designation;
or did his license authorize him TO open
y bar on Sbipley street, with another
entrancef
s ssatha ,,,ord sniacc, as usad In tba