The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1914-12-22
Certain Prohibition is Put on
Railroad and Express Com
panies by Court Order.

PoliSS ny OUuIt OIueI.
Judge Raymond Maxwell OF the cir
cult court Monday afternoon granted
the following Injunction on applica-
ton OF the state against the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company and the
Wells Fargo and Company Express
Company pertaining to carrying and
delivering liquors In this county:
This day came the plaintiff. the
state Of West Virginia, who brings
her suit at the instance OF Fred D.
Blue, state commissioner OF prohibi=
ton, and ]. n. Tenny, deputy state
commissioner Of prohibition, against
| the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Conn
pany, a corporation doing business in
1.-THE state Of West Virginia, and pre-
scented her bill duly verified, praying,
among other things, that she may be
awarded an Injunction against the
said defendant restraining and en-
Joining it, It's agents, employees and
Representatives from making deliy-
cries OF certain alleged unlawful ship
fments Of liquor within the said coun-
| ty Of Harrison, and to declare the
defendant a common nuisance in SO
far as such deliveries are concerned.
And said defendant appeared by coun-
lsel, resisted by argument of counsel
the granting OF such injunction, and
demurred to said bill Of complaint.
Upon consideration whereof, the
court being ofsopinion that the allie
cations Of the bill entitle the plain
Itiff to an Injunction in accordance
with the prayer of the bill, though
mot to the full extent thereof, it is ad-
Judged, ordered and decreed that the
defendant, its agents. employees and
representatives be and they are here
lby enjoined and restrained from de-
llivering any Intoxicating liquors to
any point in said Harrison county and
to any consignee therein, unless the
said defendant has first Informed
Itself by acting in good faith with due
diligence and caution, that such CON
signee ordered such liquors for his
lawful personal use, without solicita-
ton on the part of the consignor, his
agents or employees, and without in
lteptfon (if ascertainable by the de-
fendant, its agents, employees, or rep
resentatives by the exercise Of due
diligence and caution) on. the part Of
any person interested therein to be
received, possessed, sold or in any
manner used In violation of the law
of said state; and from knowingly
delivering liquors within the said
county Of Harrison unless the con-
Esignee signs the defendants liquor
record in his own proper person. and
not in the name of some fictitious
person or otherwise, and then only
In accordance with the requirements
and coalitions hereof above set forth.
Therefore the defendant moved
that bond, in suitable amount be
required OF the plaintiff, as con-
dition precedent to the granting OF
lsaid injunction, which motion is over
ruled. and the injunction herein
specified is awarded without bond
required Of the plaintiff.
1T is further adjudged. ordered
and decreed that an attested copy of
this order be served upon. the said
defendant, and that it shall have
the effect of complete notice to the
defendant OF the requirements here
of, from, and after midnight this
date"
Judge Maxwell's opinion was us
follows:
4 In as much as counsel for the de-
! PENDANT strenuously but respectfully
insists. that the law does mot warrant
the issuance of an Injunction such as
the state asks here, have hastily
prepared the following memorandum
setting forth. briefly, the line of rea;-
soning that / follow, and some of the
authorities upon which l rely in
reahing the conclusion that the in
junction hlay be awarded.
I am of the opinion that solicita-
ton, by mail, by a nonresident liquor
dealer Is a violation Of that portion
Of Section of the Yost law which
makes 1t unlawful for any person to
solicit or receive orders for liquors
In this state. This conclusion rests
in part upon the case of Delemated
Tvs. South Dakota, s205 u. s., p. 80,
wherein the United States Supreme
Court held the right Of a state to for
IBID and punish, the personal solicit
ling of liquor orders within its
bounds, even though the liquors con-
ltemplated to be furnished were sit
Il udLe III tduOLueT StdL6s ana IuTLQSr
upon the principle recognized and
applied in the case Of the United
States VS.. Thayer, 209 U. s., p. SO, to
the effect that a solicitation by mail
mot necessarily liquor solicitation,
but generality is contaminated at the
tplace Of. and at the time of, deliv-
cry OF the letter or circular con-
tanning such solicitation to the per-
son for whom it was intended; that
the mail is the mere innocent agent
OF the sender of the solicitation, and
1 that the sender's unlawful act is con.
summated only when the innocent
agent completes the undertaking that
was delegated to 1t.
\ II a nonresident liquor dealer
were to. come personally into this
4 county and solicit Of John Doe an
lorder for intoxicating liquor, not only
4 would such dealer be liable to pun
ishment for making solicitation In
violation OF section of the Yost
flaw, but the sale itself would be
tainted by the unlawful solicitation
and the common carrier, through the
medium ,<of which the delivery OF
the liquors involved in such transac-
tion was sought to be made, could
be enioined by a court of equity
i from such delivery.
= a =