Evening journal., 1914-06-11
JUDGES IN STATE COURT
CLAMP THE LID DOWN ON
LIQUOR SALES BY CLUBS

in the business of selling liquor and
therefore we can understand how the
courts in the jurisdiction adverted to,
might very readily hold that the trans
action complained of is not a violation
of the provisions of such statutes.
But the law of our state with respect
TO the sale of Intoxicating liquors was
changed by the act of 1873. and with
that change the question whether such a
transaction as that of the defendant
club in dispensing liquors TO its menu
hers is violation of the law against
the sale of liquor assumed different
aspect. and created the necessity Of de
tprmnine ID with respect TO language
and within the meaning of an altogether
different statute. The former statute,
insofar az IL related 20 the business OF
selling liquor was repealed and its pro
visions with respect 10 the business OF
selling liquor were superseded by the
provisions of new act (Chaptcr 4lS,
Volume IA. Laws of Dclawarel. which
abandoned the regulation of the husi-
ness Of selling liquor and addressed it.
self TO the regulation of the sale OF
LIQUOR. II begins with a sweeping dec
laration that "No person, by himself
his agent or servant. directly or indi-
rectlv. shall sell any intoxicating
liquors except as herein provided II
this had been all OF the statute. the
words and their unequivocal meaning
would have constituted statute OF
total prohibition Following these
words of general prohibition, however
the statute provides for the sale ol
lauor In certain and in limited ways
which have relation 10 the quantity
to be sold and the place upon which the
liquor is TO be drunk, thereby indicat-
inc In the first paragraph that no per-
son excepting those hereafter dcsig-
mated NAV sell liquor in this state and
by the latter paragraphs limiting the
right 20 sell liquor 10 the persons and
IN the manner described As the defen'
dant admits that il was not a person
licensed under this law TO sell liquor
but two questions are presented fol
consideration. first. whether the defen'
dant IS a person within the mean
ing Of the acts and second, whether the
transaction was a sale within the mean
ing Of the act.
n is not denied that the defendant
corporation is person within The
meaning Of the statute The word per
son ia generic term, and as such may
extend 10 and include artificial as well
as natural persons. The intention OF
the Legislature in the Use of the word
Is manifest. and in CONSUMING the stat
ute. we hold that when the Legsla.
ture bv statute attempted to regulate
the sale of liquor in all ways it in
tended lis control 10 extend TO all per
sons. and this embraced corporations as
weI a. individuals. Rev Code, Oh. .
Sec. /. "; The Germania v. state, Z
Md. I; q. S. v. Amedy, IL Wheat. 392
People v. Ins. Co.; 10 John. 35S.
In support of the opposing conten-
tons that the transaction of the de-
PENDANT in dispensing liquors to iti
members, Is or is not a sale, coun'
sci for the respective parties have
cited a vast number OF cases, whicl
upon examination we find dithcult L
classify and impossible to reconcile
case involving the question
of the right of club to sell or dis
pense liquor 10 It's members has ariseI
Under a charge of violating the pro
lfbition of some statute. so every
case turns upon the peculiar language
and particular meaning of the statute
under which the charge is made and
the case tried AS the force of a de-
cision is not known until the language
of the statute under which IL is rem
dered is known. we have been com
PEELED to give to the study of each
case corresponding consideration
of the statute under which the case
was decided, in an effort, by elimina.
ton and comparison, TO distinguish
the cases decided under statutes with
prohibitive features similar to ouI
own from those decided under stat
utes with dissimilas features, anC
thereby collect and weigh the deci
sions that may have an authoritative
bearing upon the case before us.
To review the consideration w
have given TO all the cases cited, to
gether with the statutes under which
they we're decided, would result II
an opinion, the inordinate length o
which would tend to confuse rathe
than facilitate a ready comprehension
of the subject. We will, therefore, at
tempt a classification of the case
and give to the cases so classified,
consideration of the general princi
Piles by which they are controlled.
Amid the conflict of decisions upol
the question under consideration. tn
courts everywhere have been uniform
In their effort to stamp out any tricl
or device, which i'm the guise OF lega
form, is resorted to In order to evad
the laws regulating or prohibiting tn
sale of liquor Clubs that are organ
lied TO evade the law present no prob
lens under any kind OF statute
with respect to their right to sell o
dispense liquor. They have none. An
when such devices are resorted t
they are readily unmasked and ar
promptly set aside. We therefor
eliminate from our consideration a
of no authoritative weight upon tn
case before aus. all those cases citel
which might be termed device case
The case under consideration Is az
mitted to be case of a bona fide clul
dispensing liquor in a manner. whicl
If unlawful, was without attempt
evade the law.
A transaction such as is charged {
the defendant I'm this case, is in man
jurisdictions held TO be a sale In n
ordinary legal meaning Of that terri
and held TO be a violation of statute
that prohibit the sale of liquor.
the other hand such a transaction
held in other jurisdictions under iii
statutes not to be a sale, and not
violation of the law, upon the theol
that the liquor is owned in connie
by all the members OF the club, Il
the use and refreshment of those wi
desire it, that when a member is ser
ed with a drink, he but takes fro