Evening journal., 1914-06-11

S. r. POI. ll3; Manning v. Canaan City,
l0l Pac. tCIl a7S; Conocochcague Club
". state, llG Md 3l7.
With the aid of the cases cited, we
will now address our consideration TO
the transaction involved i'm this case,
viewed in connection with the statute
under which the transaction is claimed
bv the defendant to he lawful and by
the state to be unlawful The statute
is as follows. "That no person. by him
self. MI, agent or servant, directly or
indirectly. shall sell any Intoxicating
liquors except as herein provided" Fol
lowing this expression of general prohi
bition. the statute dcsignates the type
of licenses that may be issued to per-
sons who hereunder may lawfully sell
liquor. and to that end provides for H.
censing druggists. inn keepers. etc. II
has been earnestly contended by counsel
for tee defendant, that notwithstanding
the general prohibitory language of its
opening sentence, the statute after all is
but statute regulating the business
of selling liquors, and that sale by a
club Is not embraced within the bust
ncsses described and intended TO be
regulated, and that, even if the trans
action could otherwise be considered u
sale. it is not a sale within the mean
ing of the statute
In support of this contention, coun-
sci for the defendant nave placed
especial reliance upon the opinion
of the Court of Errors and Appeals
of this state. delivered in the case OF
Hall VS.. state, Harr. 1872, decided in
1874. in which Chief Justice Booth IN
constituting the statute then under
consideration, referred to the sale o.
liquor by an inn keeper as a part
of the business" of an inn keeper
and that the license to the inn keeper
authorized him ito sell liquor, gen
orally, as business" But She
statute under construction was not
statute regulating the sale OF liquor
or regulating the business OF selling
liquor. It was statute entitled.
AN Act more effectually to prevent
the Proclamation of the Lords Day,
commonly called Sunday" enacted
originally in 174O and re-enacted in
1895. the first section of which pro-
hibited any servile work, labor or
business on Sunday, excepting works
OIL utffNNNANf tudlAAe anu AhNANes nv
question was whether the keeper OF
an inn, tavern or public house Of
entertainment, by the act of furnish
ing liquor from his bar on Sunday
was guilty of a proclamation OF the
Lords Day There was no question
OF a violation of law against the
sale of liquor on Sunday. II was
admitted he had a right to sell liquor
on Sunday, under law as it then eX-
listed. l. his business Of a tavern
keeper for public entertainment was
such a business as by the terms Of
the statute was not prohibited on
Sunday. The point decided was that
the business of tavern keeper was
not such as was prohibited on Sun
day within the meaning of the statute
and therefore the sale of liquor on
Sunday by one licensed to engage In
the business of keeping an inn, was
not a violation of the act against the
PROCLAMATION of the Lords Day.
We do not think the case OF Hal
VS.. state (supra) is authority for The
contention that our present statute
/ prohibiting the sale of liquor is in
! effect statute regulating the bust
ness OF selling liquor.
! IL the statute under which the con
| troversy in this case has arisen, we're
, a "liuuor business" statute, dram
shop statute" or the like. the con-
/ tention that clubs and sales by clubs
| are not embraced within its true in
tent and meaning, would appeal 20 Us
with force. but as we read the statute
we gather from its opening sentence
a declaration of state policy re-
specting not the business of selling
iauor, but the act of selling liquor
Although producing revenue for the
state, we do not consider the statute
distinctively a revenue act but rath-
er a law enacted under the police
powers of the state, having in view
| primarily the prohibition of the sale
of liquors except in specified ways
and secondly, the regulation of the
sale of liquors in those designated
ways. Giving 10 the statute this
Interpretation, the remaining ques-
ton is whether the transaction with
which the defendant is charged, is 9
sale
A sale may be defined to be a
transfer of ownership in property
from one person to another, upon a
valuable consideration. Martin vs.
state, 50 Ala "a. So The trans
action charged 10 and admitted by
the defendant was a purchase ol
, LIQUOR by an Incorporated club viii
, moneys from its treasury, and tho
transfer Of portion thereof to ou'
of its members in exchange for none,
paid by him
When liquor Is purchased by suci
club with the funds OF the CLUB. n
liquor becomes the property Of ;t'
) club and so remains until il dispose
. of IT, In such property the club hold
the legal title. and as property. it i
. a part Of the clubs assets. II de
stroyed the loss is the loss of the clul
and If insured. the indemnity is pay
able to the club. In case OF tn
clubs insolvency. its stock of liquo
may be claimed by its receiver or ma
he levied upon and sold under execu
ton process. in either event for tn
Continued on Page Thirteen.